Friday 2010-12-03 Dev. update and Discussion

[Oleg Maddox]

Hi all.
Today I decided to make some surprize. Would like to see your discussion and discovering of features. I will look during several days and then will correct or answer some of posts. But only about these that I want to comment. Please be patient if I didn't answer for some questions. This means that it isn't right time yet to answer.
I'm inviting in discussion all who knows Il-2 FMB. That to make comparison.

[Oleg Maddox]

This is the other part of shots from FMB: Don't ask about list of all planes I show only these that I want to show.

[dali]

phew! extensive settings...well done.

[Foo'bar]

Finally we know the map's dimensions :) thank you! According to the scroll bar's size I guess the map will have the following size:

[Daniël]

Quite impressive settings.:)

[NSU]

yes very nice, thx for the Editor Informations :)

[pupaxx]

second part pict 4 of 5

ammo belts...detonators?:confused:

Great!

[meplay]

I like the fact that you can weather your plane :)

[philip.ed]

Very, very impressive!

I'd only say that I think the aircraft-display-symbols should point in the direction the aircraft are facing, so it's clear to see what direction they are travelling in...any thoughts?

Love the feature of callsigns, too! Very impressive update IMHO, cheers Oleg.

What does weather-map mean? Can we view the weather?

[FG28_Kodiak]

Finally we know the map's dimensions :) thank you!

Not exactly, there is a scrollbar on the right, so there must be more in the south ;)

[nicom69]

i m first this time...

[NSU]

ohh, Oleg can you post a screenshot from the South point on the map?

[Skarphol]

I'd only say that I think the aircraft-display-symbols should point in the direction the aircraft are facing, so it's clear to see what direction they are travelling in...any thoughts?


I thought those were airfields? A little to many perhaps?

Skarphol

[philip.ed]

[QUOTE=philip.ed;202144]
I'd only say that I think the aircraft-display-symbols should point in the direction the aircraft are facing, so it's clear to see what direction they are travelling in...any thoughts?

QUOTE]

I thought those were airfields? A little to many perhaps?

Skarphol

Ah, I see....IMHO there's never too many, but maybe the symbol is too confusing? ;)

[David603]

Not exactly, there is a scrollbar on the right, so there must be more in the south ;)
Had a quick look on google maps, and from the scroll-bar I would estimate the map extends south to somewhere around Le Havre.

[Oleg Maddox]

ohh, Oleg can you post a screenshot from the South point on the map?

Yes, sorry my friend.
I remember you request for planning new you own campaign add-on.

[PeterPanPan]

Brilliant, thanks Oleg. The map size/detail looks fantastic. I have a few FMB questions which I'll post after work.

Cheers

PPanPan

[Letum]

Thank you again Oleg.
Will there be a winter map with this release?

[Foo'bar]

Yes, sorry my friend.
I remember you request for planning new you own campaign add-on.

I knew it! :cool:

[Upthair]

An idea about the image below:). In the "Action" slot, things like "Tight horizontal Turn", "Barrel Roll", etc, can perhaps be added for AI pilots. AI planes performing these manoeuvres endlessly can help us practise gunnery against online opponents.;)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=4026&d=1291381977

[NSU]

Yes, sorry my friend.
I remember you request for planning new you own campaign add-on.

yes, now i have all infos :)

maybe a good screenshot from London ;)

[PeterPanPan]

Full map below ... looks good eh :)

http://www.360vision.co.uk/uploads/il2/map_800.jpg

PPanPan

[Trooper117]

Brilliant.. This is the info I have been waiting for. I almost feel I can leap straight in and start making my own missions straight away.. it's instantly recognisable from the IL2 FMB..

[addman]

OMG! weathering slider! multiple bomber formations! callsigns! I might just have soiled myself, great stuff Oleg to say the least. :grin:

[=69.GIAP=TOOZ]

I would really like to see a shot of how the weather fronts are depicted on the map. Perhaps some details of how you can adjust weather conditions and how we can plot the movement of weather fronts.

I think it was mentioned before but I forget: in campaigns will the weather conditions be as they were reported in RL during the Battle? From what I remember weather reports were well documented for each day.

Also, in dogfight servers can you set up weather conditions to run according to a specific day, i.e. say you want to run a dogfight map simulating a specific day in September, or whatever, so will the weather conditions on that day be selectable for your mission and the conditions change at the correct speed, etc, over the course of the mission?

And when designing your own missions would you set up weather fronts as you might set up AI flights, i.e. you select a cold front to begin at a certain point on the map, and you plot it to move across the map at a certain speed/rate based on wind speed, or whatever so that you can generate possible weather forecasts for the mission briefings? So you come into a mission, read the brief and see that weather is forecast to be fine at mission start, but you should expect to find rain, or heavy overcast, or fog 3 hours later when you come back to your airfield?

[F19_lacrits]

Nice stuff Oleg & Co.! Is there backwards compatility with IL2 missions? Like the "weather front" hint.. Set up different types of weather. Maybe not "dynamic", but still, it will add alot of immersion! :)
I love Fridays.. "Oleg Friday"! :D

[bandini]

Spline editing ?
Does it mean we will be able to add road, airfield tracks and so on ?
All this road with nice curves ?

[JAMF]

Has the waypoint-size been increased to make them easier to hit for navigation?

[Red Dragon-DK]

~S~

Thanks for the update. I’m looking forward to making missions in the FMB. I have 2 questions for now.

1. In FMB, when you for example make a AAA battery, and want to make several, will you be able to copy/paste it in another location?

2. Will it be possible to make moving dogfight servers in SOW where AI controlled car/tanks/airplane is a factor?

[Dano]

Tweening :cool:

Looks like my beer infused calculations on the map size were not that far off after all :)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=193910&postcount=259

[Hecke]

Hey Oleg,

will you change the visuals of the GUI of the FMB so it better fits the modern look of the overall sim?

[JG52Krupi]

Dam it only just missed out the south west... :(

[whatnot]

Wow, a lot of options, I sure have work cut out for me!

Haven't been much of a mission / campaign builder myself but I plan on becoming one with BOB. What I really like in the campaigns I've played with IL-2 is historic accuracy and content that encompanies the story along so a few questions around that area:

1) Will you be able to add more 'story content' to the campaigns than just text in a narrow box. Stuff like pictures, sounds and videos would be fantastic immersion boost for me! Maybe an html format or whatever for the content could do the trick the easiest way, dunno.

2) The map look pretty big already (400+ KM diagonally I recon), but can you tell us what are the capabilities for the mapsize given the engine / HW limitations? So if there would be a crazy team of mappers who'd be ready to work 24x7 for a decade to build a map of entire europe for example?

3) I assume custom map building is possible?

4) Should there be benelux, norththern britain or whatever maps coming in the future releases, would it be possible to think that they'd be 'attached' to BOB map to create a bigger entity?

Thanks for the friday updates Oleg, it's a fantastic way to start a weekend! :-)

[Avimimus]

# of passes!!!

(However, I saw no setting of random failures or a way to add extra weight from field repairs)

Still, I'm very pleased - there are so many details that I'd never have thought of!

[McHilt]

Finally we know the map's dimensions :) thank you! According to the scroll bar's size I guess the map will have the following size:

Oh, wow... well, that map makes me wonder what the coast of Normandy/Brittany would look like, lots of cliffs for the latter?

Love the number of options

[BigPickle]

Hey Oleg, thanks for the update, the editor looks great fun!
My question would have to be, what will the flight size be, in IL2 we were restricted to 4, will SoW have bigger flight sizes?
Thank you

[Flying Pencil]

WW2 Google Maps!! :rolleyes: ;) :D

I think I would have HOURS of fun just flying around!

Look at all those who spend hours solo in MFS or X-Plane?? :)

Thanks Oleg (PS, been away on vacation and business, but always see what's up!)

[flyingblind]

Very frustrating - I just keep going to click on tabs and pull down menus to see what's there forgetting it's just a .jpg!

Thanks for update.

[Redwan]

I see that I have been waiting for 1 week just to see .... boring maps ...
After the last week's update session with BoB menus, I would have expected something more graphic/exiting.


I know, "I dont have the time, I'm tired", or what ever excuse we already heard here ... but is it so difficult to start the beta version and push on PRINT SCREEN on some ongoing air action ? I cant' believe that Oleg cannot delegate such an easy task to one of his guy's if he doesn't have the time himself.

[Dano]

Very frustrating - I just keep going to click on tabs and pull down menus to see what's there forgetting it's just a .jpg!

Thanks for update.

Heheheh, not just me then :)

Very nice to see some free flight missions in there, as well as London Sightseeing.

Here's my questions and observations:

What are the Dimas and Slides folders?

Are the nice big doughnut shaped waypoints indicitive of not having to fly over an exact location for waypoints to update?

Map layers - intriguing, is this just a feature for ease of use?

Weather fronts, nice to see some confirmation these are still in effect :)

Aircraft serial #, does this mean that individual aircraft will be tracked and damage and over stressings can be carried over into further missions? I seem to recall some discussion on this point ages ago.

#Passes - awesome, I take it this means no more watching the AI endlessly attacking a target until one or the other is decimated?

:D

[Dano]

I see that I have been waiting for 1 week just to see .... boring maps ...
After the last week's update session with BoB menus, I would have expected something more graphic/exiting.


I know, "I dont have the time, I'm tired", or what ever excuse we already heard here ... but is it so difficult to start the beta version and push on PRINT SCREEN on some ongoing air action ? I cant' believe that Oleg cannot delegate such an easy task to one of his guy's if he doesn't have the time himself.

Oh dear...

[moilami]

Dear Oleg

I hope from the bottom of my heart that you make sure meaningful Online Campaign Wars between squadrons can be run in SoW.

I hope SoW doesn't end up to be a similar fiasco as NWN2 was, where realm build tools were so limited when compared that many just kept playing NWN.

You have a great concept in your hands. Please make sure we can dig deep on it and use it for our needs, whatever they are.

[322Sqn_Dusty]

Show weather front :) So it might be possible to built heavy clouds over the target area while sunbathing back home?
Do the layers contain objects or just infrastructure?

Very extended options for the FMB, nice touch on the aircraft tabs.
Nice to see the waypoints could be ' interactive 'on hight, course, manner etc.


Will there be a map available with the Dutch coast?

[kalimba]

I see that I have been waiting for 1 week just to see .... boring maps ...
After the last week's update session with BoB menus, I would have expected something more graphic/exiting.


I know, "I dont have the time, I'm tired", or what ever excuse we already heard here ... but is it so difficult to start the beta version and push on PRINT SCREEN on some ongoing air action ? I cant' believe that Oleg cannot delegate such an easy task to one of his guy's if he doesn't have the time himself.

Well, you could ask your mom to look at the update first on friday morning , and if there are "only" maps, then she could tell you : sorry sweety, not this week ! But I made some good pancakes for you...:-P

So that way, you would'nt be too disappointed....

:cool:

[Splitter]

I see that I have been waiting for 1 week just to see .... boring maps ...
After the last week's update session with BoB menus, I would have expected something more graphic/exiting.


I know, "I dont have the time, I'm tired", or what ever excuse we already heard here ... but is it so difficult to start the beta version and push on PRINT SCREEN on some ongoing air action ? I cant' believe that Oleg cannot delegate such an easy task to one of his guy's if he doesn't have the time himself.

Wow. You should understand that some of us (many?) are just as interested in the nuts and bolts of the game as we are about the graphics. We've seen a lot of graphics, even in game video. Those look good, but what will make this a great sim is the "guts" of the software. Oleg is showing us some of the inner workings and alluding to the expandability of the sim.

Your post is rude, sorry. Very ungrateful. And I don't care if saying so gets me a ban for being "off topic", it needs ot be said.

As for me, it looks like even I could build decent missions in SoW lol. I love all the options and it looks pretty straight forward (I am sure it won't be the first time through though, never is).

Thank you for the peek inside, Oleg.

Splitter

[nearmiss]

This is a significant update for mission builders... Thank you.

[C_G]

I refuse to take that bait, Redwan. Anyway...

OLEG,

I can't see much to constructively criticize as it seems to be a "newer, bigger and better" IL-2 FMB. I think the mission builders won't have any difficulty adapting which is great.

The term "in-betweening" is a little vague but my guess is that this refers to a modifier applied to the parameters (flight speed/altitude) BETWEEN way-points, but it might also refer to interpolating flight speeds and altitudes as between flights of different aircraft (bombers and their escorts). I'm sure the meaning will be clear once we get a chance to use it.

I like the fact that there seem to be more options for spawn states (scramble, idle etc...).
It also looks as though we'll be able to edit roads and road embankments... very nice.
I also like the fact that specific call signs ("pinetree") can be assigned- this will make comms more realistic (and can be used to recreate missions from books more realistic where the call sign is indicated).
The sliding scale of weathering is another nice feature, can it be applied to different aircraft within the same flight?
Finally, the Weather map doesn't seem to be indicating that any weather was selected... maybe I am missing something, but I was expecting some meteorological symbols indicating zones of high and low pressure, precipitation- that sort of thing.

All very minor points.
It's going to be a lot of fun playing with all the new parameters!
C_G

[Flanker35M]

S!

Looks like the FMB got a LOT new options, which is good. The ReadMe must be pretty extensive on that new FMB ;) Regarding airfield markers, they could be smaller, even use the tactical markings of that time perhaps?

A question regarding the roads and railways. Are they now properly interconnected everywhere? Can a mission builder now insert car convoys, trains etc. running at the map from one town to another realistically, making it a bit more "living" and give targets of opportunity? Do the cars follow roads now better than in IL-2 where they could try go through fields and whatever...and usually get stuck against a building for example.

Otherwise seems the FMB interface will be familiar to use :)

[easytarget3]

Are all the plane there on the list flyable? I wish they are :))

thanks Oleg, have a nice weekend!

[brzina]

Will this be flyable?
You know, Il-2 was always a great game, but what it lacked, was flyable MBR-2. And also some other important planes, notably Letov-328. And Wildebeest, there was not even an AI one. Unimaginable!
:evil:
Sorry, could not help myself. But to take thing serious, I dare to predict that people will soon begin to complain if ammo belts will be only in group settings and not also in the individual plane settings.
And yes, what are those detonators?

[Richie]

Hi Oleg.

I was wondering if there is an option to put the "Adjutant" symbol on German fighters like this Werner Schroer 109. The big "A"

http://i36.tinypic.com/2ufgefm.jpg

[C_G]

Oleg was pretty clear that in addition to providing us with an update as to the state of the FMB, he was hoping for some feedback ON the new FMB... not another flipping flame-war.

I'm just saying...

[ECV56_Guevara]

The greatest update for mission builders ever.
Oleg: Which means the tab "script"?? Is that a trigger???
Could you explain a lil more about the briefing feature?
Thanks a lot!

[zapatista]

oleg,

thanks for the update !

the total size of the map looks great, and like the fact we can set formation types for AI components of flights :)

[PeterPanPan]

Hi Oleg,

All looking very, very good. Just a few questions/observations.

1. Can we please have the option to display waypoint speeds/altitudes in mph/feet?

2. Will it be possible to set waypoint arrival times directly, and let the game engine adjust a/c speed to suit? This way, it will make it easier to coordinate a/c engagements with less of the trial and error process.

3. The weathering slider sounds great. Will it also be possible to set inital aircraft/ship damage levels too? At present in IL2, it is very difficult to set up a ship as damaged at the start of a mission or a returning squadron with some smoking aircraft. This would be a great feature.

4. Can we now set up aircraft take-off positions that are not line astern e.g. a line abreast squadron take-off?

5. What can the maximum no. of aircraft in a flight be? Can we easily set up large bomber formations, for example?

6. Will it be possible to set AI aircraft to behave differently from 'see & destroy'? For example, to ignore a target or to lure an enemy a/c to chase it, not simply shoot it down?

7. Can we now set AI aircraft to land and take-off again?

8. Will it be possible to select multiple objects and copy & paste? Or will the stock objects include multiple object sets, e.g. clusters of trees, ship convoys, etc.

9. Finally, I'm really hoping that the FMB will at last have the ability to trigger events e.g. a squadron will scramble if enemy AI come within 'x' miles.

Think I better stop now before I get burned for asking too much!

Thanks again

PPanPan

[[URU]AkeR]

I see that I have been waiting for 1 week just to see .... boring maps ...
After the last week's update session with BoB menus, I would have expected something more graphic/exiting.


I know, "I dont have the time, I'm tired", or what ever excuse we already heard here ... but is it so difficult to start the beta version and push on PRINT SCREEN on some ongoing air action ? I cant' believe that Oleg cannot delegate such an easy task to one of his guy's if he doesn't have the time himself.
Ahh Redwan, Redwan.
See, those exciting missions you fly on different servers, and those engaging, inmmersive coops you might fly online, are made by people that spends hours in front of this "boring maps" actually in a version that is much more basic than what Oleg just showed. Now imagine what they would do with this many options.
I think its exciting.

Oleg, now that we have those crystal clear waypoint markers, maybe it is possible to have different tones of red (or blue) depending on height?
Will ground movement waypoint markers be different from air ones?
I see some spawn options, so we will be seeing ai on dogfight missions?
Te # of passes option is sweet, also the inbetween options.. ah and the group Properties depicting weight in the current waypoint!

[d0o0m]

Looks great. This project is now moving into the arena most interesting to me. I build missions for the Digital Combat Simulator platform. There are a few things i would like to see with SoW:

1. Trigger system based upon "and/or" arguments.
2. Zone triggers.
3. Custom message and audio displays when certain triggers are met.
4. Random mechanical fault ability.
5. Templates. Please add the ability to save groupings of targets as a template if possible.


Also - could we please see some detail on how the briefing will be handeled? Too often i see too little attention paid to this aspect and it significantly diminishes the immersive factor when developing either cooperative missions or campaigns.

Thanks Oleg.

[Triggaaar]

Not specific to this update, but it's only just crossed my mind:

Is it possible for SoW to disable padlock enemy when the enemy flys into a cloud? If there is a decent amount of cloud cover, it should be possbile to run without being followed by and enemy padlock option.

I apologise if this has been asked/answered before.

[FlatSpinMan]

Thanks a lot for this update (despite the fool earlier in this thread). It looks very good and very familiar too. excellent - I'm a keen campaign builder in IL2 so I look forward to using it.


[EDIT: Seems PeterPan beat me to most of these questions]

FMB Questions
1.Can you please make the speed set in the FMB CONSTANT across altitudes, aircraft types and fuel/loadout states? If the FMB value could display TRUE airspeed rather than indicated, it would also be helpful.
Of course all those factors effect actual airspeed, but in IL2, speed in-game differs based on the above points. This makes assembling large formations very hard.


2. Can multiple flights be set into larger formations simply (e.g. by clicking "formate on flight 1" ; or by making a flightpath for one flight then clicking a button to add a second or third flight suitably spaced)? From the Group Properties screen that looks to be correct.

3. On properties screen I saw Ammo Belt or similar. Will it be possible to add different ammo states, e.g. 20%, 5% etc. This could help us simulate jams. (Not so important).

4. Do you think it'll be possible for AI to taxi and take off from dispersed positions, or in formation? I remember you said it was difficult to avoid collisions with IL2's AI, hence the starts on the runway.

5. Set target. Is it possible to set an enemy FLIGHT as a target, rather than just the LEADER of that flight? This would reduce occasions where the whole flight is chasing the mortally wounded enemy leader while his AI mates fly along undisturbed.


SHIP AI
1. In Il2 it can be very hard to get ships' guns to work as expected. "Sleep" is often ignored by the ships, or else it is obeyed too strictly, so that when the enemy plane flies past, the AI gunners do nothing until the flight has passed overhead.

Many thanks for the work you have put in. Can't wait to get it!

MARKINGS
1. Are markings squadron and time-specific? Do the RAF roundels vary according to the date of the action, for example?

2. Are the markings subject to weathering along with the rest of the skin. (I imagine so).

[I/ZG52_Gaga]

errrrrr ...

When can we have it? Please!

eh? :)

[rakinroll]

Thank you Oleg.

[Sutts]

A very interesting update this week Oleg, thanks. Nice to see the full map at last. Should allow for some great missions. Is there a possibility in future that the map could be extended northwards to include the 12 Group fields or would that be pushing the current hardware too far? It would be nice one day to reenact the 12 group Big Wing attacks.

Someone mentioned specifying waypoint times of arrival and having the FMB work out the necessary speed to get there on time. This would be a great feature and was implemented incredibly well by the Tornado simulator years ago.

As far as I remember, you could do things both ways i.e. specify arrival time OR speed for a waypoint. If the time you specified required an impossible speed to get there, the waypoint track changed colour to red I think. I used to spend hours creating multi-flight attacks which would come in from different directions at different heights and speeds at the critical moment to avoid the blasts from the previous pass. A very enjoyable experience I've got to say.

The map looks very fine resolution which is great. I'm hoping we can zoom in and out smoothly (like google earth), rather than in clunky increments. A slight concern is the size of the waypoint marker....will it still allow for very accurate positioning Oleg?

Thanks Oleg.:grin:

[Zappatime]

Thanks Oleg for these very revealing shots, lots of parameters and variables! Will the spline road mean there's also a 'line type' for railway tracks, so we can layout these as well as the road splines that someone's already asked you about?

PS I like the left and right nose art options, coloured band options and weathering slider....and a host of other stuff! Its nice that its like a super-extension of the FMB we all know, and one heck of a map area :grin:

[AWL_Spinner]

A very interesting update this week Oleg, thanks. Nice to see the full map at last. Should allow for some great missions. Is there a possibility in future that the map could be extended northwards to include the 12 Group fields or would that be pushing the current hardware too far? It would be nice one day to reenact the 12 group Big Wing attacks.


Up to Northumberland and beyond, to Scapa Flow, would be wonderful as we could then deal with pesky Luftwaffe raiders from Norway.

I must admit personal bias and local wartime connections with the Northumberland request.

Pleased to see my former home town of Bournemouth on the map though, I've always wanted to chase a Ju-88 across those sandy beaches! Also looking forward to bombing German invasion barges across the kanal in my Hampden (here's hoping we get one...:) )

Thanks Oleg, great update. This release is going to be so exciting for historical mission builders, campaign developers, movie makers and everyone else involved in this hobby. The enhanced FMB looks terrific, hopefully laying to rest all of the little niggles and limitations with the IL2 system (good though it was).

Regards, Spinner

[bw_wolverine]

Airfields are listed as objects?

Does this mean we can turn on or off airfields and if so, what is added/removed?

IL-2 all airfields were always on the map, but objects not so (to be added in editor).

Does turning on/off airfields remove the actual airfield or just make it easier to add/remove the airfield objects (hangars, anti-air guns, lights, control towers, etc.)?

Also, assigning callsigns is great change. Will it be easy to add our own selectable ones? (record file, add to directory, upload on mission join, etc.)

[PeterPanPan]

... Is there a possibility in future that the map could be extended northwards to include the 12 Group fields or would that be pushing the current hardware too far? It would be nice one day to reenact the 12 group Big Wing attacks.

Adding RAF Duxford & Fowlmere alone would be fantastic. They are only just north of the map and of course Duxford is particularly historic/important. Still, unless the entire Biritsh Isles is modelled, you have to draw the line somewhere ;). Perhaps additional Fighter Group Sectors will one day be available as additional payware modules?

PPanPan

[*Buzzsaw*]

I see that I have been waiting for 1 week just to see .... boring maps ...
After the last week's update session with BoB menus, I would have expected something more graphic/exiting.


I know, "I dont have the time, I'm tired", or what ever excuse we already heard here ... but is it so difficult to start the beta version and push on PRINT SCREEN on some ongoing air action ? I cant' believe that Oleg cannot delegate such an easy task to one of his guy's if he doesn't have the time himself.

:(

Either you are 11 years old, or you have the brain of an 11 year old.

The Mission builder is one of the crucial elements of this game, key to its longevity.

As someone else has mentioned, a lot of players will be spending a lot of time building missions which replicate particular historical moments of the campaign which are not included in the basic game. After all there were nearly 4 months of almost continuous action.

Others will be building complete campaigns based on particular Squadrons or Staffels.

Thanks to Oleg's careful design of his mission builder, those dedicated players will have the tools to accomplish their intentions.

Next time you post a silly comment like that, you might take the time to actually think through what you are saying.

[Bricks]

Amazing options! Look at all the plane-settings available. :cool:

Weathering on a slider!

[Tree_UK]

Really nice maps thank you, is it possible we could see a weathered 109 blowing a wing off a spit next week Oleg. Thanks.

[ElAurens]

This line in the display filter caught my eye...

"Show Weather Front".

Planning/building missions within the known weather conditions will make things much more realistic.

Amazing all around.

[T}{OR]

A very interesting update. Thank you. :cool:

Few questions related to the bomber formations, in comparison with IL2 as you requested:

Under "Object/Group Properties":
How many planes per flight? 5 planes are needed for a VEE which Luftwaffe used a lot.
If the answer to the above question is more than 5, then is the limit of planes per squadron limited to 12 or perhaps more?
Am I right in assuming that whole squadron can now fly in one close formation?
What types of bomber formations will be implemented? To my understanding Luftwaffe used mostly 3 plane VIC and 5 plane VEE's, either in line astern or (almost) line abreast to one another...
Can more squadrons form one large formation? If not, can one be set as lead for others to follow it (to avoid setting way points for each formation)?


Thanks.

---

From a bomber pilot's view, formations were the biggest let down for me in IL2. Setting up a 5 plane VEE formation was impossible. Not to mention the complex USAAF formations used later in the war. Second was the team killing AI gunners that nullified the whole purpose of bombers flying close formations in the first place...

[ATAG_Dutch]

Would like to see your discussion and discovering of features.

This is a really interesting update.

In IL2 FMB, many of the objects were quite difficult to find by simply scrolling through the lists. Particularly the 'object 239 / 240 / 241' list for buildings etc.

Will all objects carry a description and be filtered by drop-down lists?

If so, will the 'Sort by' categories cover all objects in detail such as 'farmhouses' or 'city houses', or would the category be more broad, such as 'houses', or more simply, 'buildings'?

Great to see the He115, Wellington and the Anson in the lists.

Many Thanks!:grin:

[Richie]

Really nice maps thank you, is it possible we could see a weathered 109 blowing a wing off a spit next week Oleg. Thanks.


lol...Me too Tree :)

[KG26_Alpha]

Hi all.
Today I decided to make some surprize. Would like to see your discussion and discovering of features. I will look during several days and then will correct or answer some of posts. But only about these that I want to comment. Please be patient if I didn't answer for some questions. This means that it isn't right time yet to answer.
I'm inviting in discussion all who knows Il-2 FMB. That to make comparison.

Hi

Thanks for the usual Friday update.

Can we have the ability to create new folders within the FMB to put .mis & .prop files into.
It makes it easier when creating new missions campaigns to keep them in separate folders.

Also the ability to copy and paste directly in to the FMB file directory from your desktop rather than opening game installation directory C:\IL2\IL2 1946 v4.09m\Missions\Net\coop etc etc when working with multiple files its much easier to have this type of access.

With the display filter can this be fixed so that it stays active when you have selected/deselected an item in the list as its a pain when you want to filter more than one item to keep repeating the process opening the menu.

Picture number 5 could you elaborate/explain further please :)

Weathering option is very nice feature.

Delayed spawning for ground take off aircraft, is it possible to have these shown actually at the missions start but delayed take off instead of the popping in spawning as they do currently in IL2, and/or have the option to show/hide delayed spawning aircraft.

Ability to group massed flights at the moment its tedious to keep repeating formation flights of 30 aircraft. One waypoint and allow more than 1 flight to use the waypoint.

Ability to place a .jpeg in the ready room/briefing area for recon of target area/point of interest/mission parameter.

Looking at the new FMB pictures is it possible to list aircraft by country not alphabetically or have the choice to select either.

Lastly just a little criticism................... can you make the GUI look more Windows 7 rather than Windows 95 ........... or allow the user to modify :)

Have a good weekend.

[PeterPanPan]

This is a really interesting update.

In IL2 FMB, many of the objects were quite difficult to find by simply scrolling through the lists. Particularly the 'object 239 / 240 / 241' list for buildings etc.


Yes, this has always been an issue I feel. 'Stationary Objects' have names e.g. searchlight, barrage balloon etc. but 'Objects' just have numbers. I'm sure there are hundreds that have never been used because they are so hard to find. Also, it's always been a bit irritating when moving through a list of objects with the scroll arrows, and just when you've found what you are looking for, you move the mouse away from the scroll arrow and the list jumps back to the top. It gets me every time!!

[Il2Pongo]

Looks great and clear.
interlopation seems to control how the planes will transtion between indicated points. IE they will not leave a 4000 m point arrive at a 6000m point and start to climb. They will climb to the 6000m point so they are that hight when they get there?
Just a guess.

Hope we can indicate how AI will behave in a tactical sense. Agressive where they plow into the enemy even if they are out numbered 2 to 1 and down sun and 1000m below. Then moderate where they will engage roughly equal enemy but will try to gain advantage postion before they close. To cautios, where you will have to drag a broken wing under them to get them to dive on you and they will not try to mix it up, they will try to bounce and leave.

My hope....

[ECV56_Lancelot]

Hi all.
Today I decided to make some surprize. Would like to see your discussion and discovering of features. I will look during several days and then will correct or answer some of posts. But only about these that I want to comment. Please be patient if I didn't answer for some questions. This means that it isn't right time yet to answer.
I'm inviting in discussion all who knows Il-2 FMB. That to make comparison.

Finally for me a very interesting update, graphically i've been convinced with the sim long ago, and make missions with il-2 is something i expend a lot of time. :).

Well, now to the questions. By the way, if the question has already been asked and answered, please ignore it or say its already answered and i will look for it. I'm kind of short on time and can't watch the whole thread for the moment.

1) What is an "AI Actor"?. Can't guess what could be.

2) What is the function of "Process Roads"?

3) What is the function of Smooth ship path?. Is it necesary for ships to make cuved turns?

4) Is it possible to have some kind of filter with the list of objects on the mission?

5) Apparently, with the "Sort By" (1st picture of seccond post) we will now have some kind of filter. Excellent. Is it possible to know what option we will get there? To suggest some new ones, if we find it handy, and possible.

6) I don't know if it will used much, for historic reasons, but i would like to have the possibility to select several skins for a plane/planes, and that randomly inside the sim one of those skins is displayed, but if i play the mission again, same plane could be with another paintscheme.
That means, that in the "skins" option, to have something like "skin group" with a subbutton where you select the group of skins.

7) Important point mentioned previously about which speed the FMB makes reference. For help coordinating flights, it should be ground speed, but if its unreachable some indication that its not possible would be very helpfull.
Still, would like to know if its ground speed, IAS, TAS or other the one set on the FMB.

8) The radio silence clickmark. Will it work when the aircraft is going toward that waypoint, or once passed that waypoint?
Also, will it work all the waypoints after that or once passed the next waypoint will cease to function?.

9) If you can, please would like to know a little more about the "Inbetweening". What is it for and how it works. I cant figure out what is it. I don't understand it.

Group Properties

10) What is "Script Spawn C"?

11) What are "Detonators"? Something related to the fuse bombs?

12) Each flight of the squadron is only a single aircraft or it can be several aircrafts? If its the seccond, how do you assign several aircraft to each flight?.

13) With the "idle" option the aircraft will spawn on the runaway or the taxi?

14) Can we assign where on the airfield the "spawn parked" aircraft or flight will spawn.

15) Please, add also filter to the squadrons names. Like bomber squadrons, fighters, reconnaisence, mediterranean squadron, scotland squadrons, and so on. So we dont have to scrall through hundreds of squadrons like we have to do now with IL-2. It gets terrible tedious.

That is all for now. :)

Thanks for this informative update!

[ECV56_Lancelot]

Hi

Lastly just a little criticism................... can you make the GUI look more Windows 7 rather than Windows 95 ........... or allow the user to modify :)

Have a good weekend.

He he he he, i like this. Even if its not important, but i have to agree the GUI could benefit of some visual improvements. :D.

[ECV56_Lancelot]

What types of bomber formations will be implemented? To my understanding Luftwaffe used mostly 3 plane VIC and 5 plane VEE's, either in line astern or (almost) line abreast to one another...
...

I'm not expert, but for what i read, it was the other way around, and Luftwaffe used four plane four finger formations while the RAF used the three planes formation, and later changed to four planes.
I could be mistaken though, its something that happened when i started to follow this forums. :)

[SlipBall]

Very interesting Fri up-date...I was hoping that the up-dates would drift away from the usual, and reveal some of the features of the game. This up-date has delivered some of that and I like what I see. The weather map I find to be the most interesting, and I would like to get a look at it. Should be very cool to cir cum-navigate a frontal system that may have 50 thousand foot high thunderstorm column :-P

[trashcanman]

A minor point but Heathrow was called Great Western Aerodrome in 1940.

FMB looks great, superb details.

Lancelot, THOR was asking about bomber formations.

[PeterPanPan]

Lastly just a little criticism................... can you make the GUI look more Windows 7 rather than Windows 95 ...........

I do agree, but I think what Oleg is trying to do is make the new FMB as familiar and intuitive as possible for us IL2 old timers, so we can dive straight in. Perhaps he can offer 2 FMB skins ... IL2 Classic and SoW Modern, to keep everyone happy!?

[Splitter]

Maybe I missed it in the pics, but would it be possible to set parameters instead of exact numbers for certain things?

Example: Set the altitude for a flight to be between 3,000 and 20,000 feet and let the program randomize the exact number?

If this could be accomplished, a given mission could always be "different" than the last time the player flew it. This would add to the re-playability.

Splitter

[klem]

Yes, sorry my friend.
I remember you request for planning new you own campaign add-on.

There is a LOT to be positive about in the FMB, an obvious improvement on what is in IL-2.

A bit Off Topic I know but it's the first we've seen of the map and I am disappointed that we will not be able to make missions for the Battle of France or the broader Bombing aspect of the period. The most we can do is Dunquerqe. I know its BoB but I had hoped for a map extending East more.

The Battle for France is inextricably linked to the BoB, starting 10th may, same aircraft, experience/development of tactics, rolling straight through to Dunquerque and on into the BoB after a short pause.

OK, turn the flame throwers on.

[jippy13]

The shots were interesting...we learned a little more about the final release game .

But is it possible to download the demo version that we saw at Igromir show. I think it would help fans to wait more calmly the final release and it would be usefull for bob's team to get fans' feedbacks about the demo version.

Oleg, I hope you read my message and understand me :)

[smink1701]

I never used the FMB in 1946 because when I tried it didnt work...too complicated. I am an offline player only. Has anyone ever done a poll to see how many people fly online, offline and use things like FMB?

[Necrobaron]

This line in the display filter caught my eye...

"Show Weather Front".

Planning/building missions within the known weather conditions will make things much more realistic.

Amazing all around.

I agree! Great update with lots of info.

I suspect the weather system is really going to be something special and is why Oleg is keeping his cards close to his chest. I suspect it'll be a big deal when he finally decides to properly unveil it.
________
Nexium Lawsuit Information (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/nexium/)

[skyfox]

I never used the FMB in 1946 because when I tried it didnt work...too complicated. FMB?
You are missing out on one of the best features of the game and yes, lots of people use the FMB. If we were relegated to using the default coops only, it would get pretty boring.
Have a look at this tutorial link for some very useful info on using the FMB. It's not that hard once you get the hang of it.
http://www.il2-fullmissionbuilder.com/index.php

[swiss]

Really nice maps thank you, is it possible we could see a weathered 109 blowing a wing off a spit next week Oleg. Thanks.

+1

I probably spent over 1000hrs with IL2, but I've never touched the FMB and intend to keep that way(for BoB too).

Although this seems to be a highly interesting update for the mission builders, to me, well, you could as well show me a black square, lol

Just add a few pics for us action porn lovers, lease. Thx. ;)

[Stiboo]

At last some pics of the FMB, thank you Oleg,

First impressions -

Numbered waypoints is a very good idea, I often get confused when i'm plotting multiple wayoints close together, and I like the large round circles for the waypoints - don't forget you can zoom very close for pinpoint placing.

So a Squadron has 4 flights...how many squadrons can we have? and how many planes in a flight?....this is one of the biggest problems I have in campaign building in IL2 never having enough planes!

Showing the weight of the plane is another good idea and will make it easier to understand how a plane handles in various configurations.


Things I would very much like to know - please please Oleg

What are mission parameters?

In the object list showing the airfields, if you click on the object does this take you to the object on the map?

In the plane list, are the missing planes - Avro, Arado and Autogyro?

Also on the plane list, what does ' -tech- ' mean?

Inbetweening? Does this mean between 2 waypoints?

Weathering - how many levels of weathering are there and does this vary depending on the plane?

On the display filter, no artillery or AA? What filter are they under?

For the airfields - how many default objects are already placed? or do we have to place every object ourselves?

What does process Roads and Straight spline do?

In the folders screen it shows ' D:\bob.. ' - So 'Battle Of Britain' part of the official game title ?

How many skill levels are there for the a.i. ?

What is the release date? .... thought I would sneak this one in the list!!!






Thanks Oleg + crew

[smink1701]

Thanks SkyFox. Will give it another shot.

[scrope]

Really nice maps thank you, is it possible we could see a weathered 109 blowing a wing off a spit next week Oleg. Thanks.
Hey! which side are you on tree, should be the other way round.
This waiting is killing me.

[JG53Frankyboy]

ah, the FMB :)
very nice, i realy enyoed the time i spent the last years in the FMB of IL2 , and that was a lot :D

two wishes i would have for the BoB FMB :
-it would be nice if there would be a watch/clock when you start a testrun out of the editor. this watch also should react when you accelerate the time. So you would have accurate times for the briefings.

- altitude over ground/MSL. The default setting should be MSL in SoW (there is no low flying IL2 anymore as main plane, at least in the moment ;) ). But it would be helpfull if you could switch in a waypoint to 'over ground'.


just a small consideration about the shown planes:
i still hope you consider a Bf109E-4 and E-1 (with deleting the than not anymore needed E-3 :D )..........as the MG/FF-M is already in the Bf110C-4, -/7 :)

[blackjack04]

In 1946 there only appeared to be 2 types of symbol to show a dual or single runway. On one of the maps in Oleg's update something was listed about 'Spline Road Runway'. Not sure what this is. Presuming we can add runways, or not, would like to see different symbols for the various types of air strip, field, port and weather it is dirt, grass or concrete and if it has single, dual or cross runways. The symbol on the map should be rotated to align with the placement on the map of that particular airport. Concrete runways should perhaps show a number.
Getting closer guys.

[T}{OR]

I'm not expert, but for what i read, it was the other way around, and Luftwaffe used four plane four finger formations while the RAF used the three planes formation, and later changed to four planes.
I could be mistaken though, its something that happened when i started to follow this forums. :)

There is a clear distinction between bomber and fighter formations. ;)


Lets talk about fighter formations first:

According to Wikipedia the Luftwaffe was the first to use a finger four formation in World War II. This tactic consisted of two pairs (Rotte) flying together (in a Schwarm): the leader and his wingman, and leader's "deputy" and his wingman. This gave them an advantage over outdated 3 plane VIC's that RAF flew in the beginning which required all three planes firing at the bombers, and while in formation at the same time (for "added punch" of all their guns combined).

As anyone who has ever flown in formation will tell you: when in a formation you're not flying at your top speed, and your maneuvers are strictly limited. Needles to say, this outdated 3 plane VIC attack strategy was invented by someone had no idea on how to attack a bomber stream. Logically, the tactic was abandoned in favor of the finger four formations and flying in pairs (and not attacking while flying in formation, naturally).

I would be interested to know when it was abandoned, prior or during BoB - because it might be another cool feature we could see in SoW - 3 plane VIC's attacking bombers...


Anyway, back to the bomber formations. Lets discuss basics:

A bomber stream usually consist of many groups flying in formation.
A group (Gruppe) formation consists of several squadrons (Staffel) flying together, or just a single squadron.
A group/squadron formation consist of elements. Element (Kette) is a basic formation, and depending how Elements are arranged one to another and in relation to the leader - defines a formation type.
Elements can number from 3 to (usually) 7 planes or even more.
The smallest element is a 3 plane VIC formation with one plane flying on each wing of the leader. Small elements can form larger elements.

So, we are talking about Elements here.

Bombers depended on their defensive guns - the goal was to put as many defensive guns on each side of the formation, and to spread them out evenly. Therefore a finger four would be an incomplete formation for an element, and you would need to add another plane to it. In other words - you need a VEE formation with 2 planes on each wing of the leader.

From my understanding, some of the formation types Luftwaffe used were:
5 plane VEE formations (Elements) stacked one behind and below another (~5 such VEE's forming a group). With more groups flying nearby (i.e. one on each side of the lead group).
3 plane VIC formations (smaller elements), stacked closely behind and below one (forming a large element), with other large elements flying on each side of the lead one - all together forming a group.
3 plane VIC formations (smaller elements), with additional elements on each side of the lead element (forming a large element), with other such elements flying behind or behind and below one another.

^^
The last one (just a large element) or a bomber Schwärme with 3 plane VIC formations (smaller elements or Kette), we were able to see in preview videos released so far.


I hope that this answers your question why I am interested in what is the limit on how many planes per element and what kind of formations will bombers fly in SoW. :)


This is something we were never able to experience in IL2 as the limit per element was only 4 planes. While IIRC (I never played the game) Rowan's Battle of Britain: Wings of Victory simulates this very nicely.

[CRO_Adriatic]

1) Weather map - I'm interested in story behind-
-Can we create custom weather maps?
-Download current weather from internet?
-Is with dynamic weather going well?

2) Some copy paste functions?

3) Is grid allways same distance? I think on picture one line is 50 Km...
Or, can we get some measuring distance tool? (like in G.Earth)

4) Airfields altitude are shown on maps or menu?

Thank you!

[zodiac]

One question Oleg.

By looking at the map it seems that none of the airfields where the Italians were based (Ursel, Melsbroek, Maldegem,Chièvres) is on the map. I hope I'm wrong with this... Because it is strange that there's been put so much effort in modeling Italian trucks and other equipment if there will be no airbases for them.

And it seems that even if someone puts the effort in it to make the FIATs flyable, it will not be possible to fly historical missions as one of them...
A little bit sad that just by missing those crucial square kilometers a nice plane add-on will be in some way useless without a map add-on.

It becomes even more sad if you look from the perspective of the Italian AIpilots. They are ordered there to fly those deadly missions over England, when they could have been at the sunny Mediterranean. And as if that isn't enough, they now are also forced to stay in the air forever. No home in sight for them... No evening chats with their buddies that they just might lose in tomorrows fight... No letterboxes where they can post letters to their girlfriend... No kitchens where spaghetti is being prepared for the boys when they come home. The sad story of the homeless pilots... :)

[chiefrr73]

Very interesting update and thanks for it!
I would like to know if storm of war could be played at HL?
Ps: I love the work you people are doing!!!!!!! Thanks for that.

[Ibis]

Great update Oleg, mission building will be much improved, thanks.

One small request:
would it be possible to get the AA to lay a barrage in front of bomber formations as well as directly at them . At the moment most of the AA arrives behind the formation. I think this would add greatly to the visual effect for bomber pilots as they near the end of their final run to the target.
Waiting impatiently for the release of your work.:grin:
cheers,
Ibis.

[PeterPanPan]

Maybe I missed it in the pics, but would it be possible to set parameters instead of exact numbers for certain things?

Example: Set the altitude for a flight to be between 3,000 and 20,000 feet and let the program randomize the exact number?

If this could be accomplished, a given mission could always be "different" than the last time the player flew it. This would add to the re-playability.

Splitter

+1 Great idea. And for authors of coop missions, this will add to the interest as they won't know what's coming like they currently do.

[ivagiglie]

First I have to say it's nice to see so many new options and all the possibilities that these should open to us mission builders, good.

Now the not-so-good thing about the GUI:
it is terrible, really - it would have looked cool in 1995 but 15 years have passed since then.

I really would like to give feedback that could bring some improvements with a little work but this really needs to be rewritten from scratch in my opinion!
I'll try anyway:
- try to use toolbars, for example for the selection of the displayed objects, no one wants to navigate to a submenu 15 times in a row to show what is really needed on screen at that moment
- same could go for types of planes or nationalities
- try to minimize the number of objects you can select from a list - if the number of items exceeds a couple of dozen the list become unusable - order the items using some criteria is not sufficient, sorry
- try to minimize the interactions with the windows and instead focus on the GUI items themselves, for example to insert a waypoint between two existing ones you could simply double click on the first waypoint
- allow multi selection of items and allow all permitted operations that are generic and disable the ones which are specific (e.g. if you multi select two flights you could change their altitude at the same time but not their callsign which must be unique)
- allow smart operations on multi selected items via context menus (the menus that usually pop up when you click right mouse button) no need for big space consuming windows all the time - for example you could multi select a number of flights and then via context menu decide to scale their altitude by 500 m / 1000 m / 2000 m and so on
- provide two (or more) mode of operations, for example a basic one and an advanced one - when sketching a mission I'd like only the most important parameters to be shown saving precious screen estate, when refining the mission I'd take care about the details (e.g. weathering) - let me concentrate on what's important at that moment
- use the native File dialogs for god's sake! no need to see that 15 year old file selection dialog where I can't even create a directory!
- add undo/redo, of course for multiple operations
- again on item selection: have you thought about trees? in some cases they allow a much easier navigation compared to flat lists
- use dockable panels instead of windows, really, it's 2010 - GUI toolkits have made huge progresses in the last 15 years

I could go on for hours...
Sorry Oleg but this GUI can't be fixed easily, it really would need a major redesign to be in par with the quality of your simulation (which we all assume here will be the new state of the art).

Writing a new GUI of that complexity could easily require a couple of person years and I don't think you would want or could afford to do that now.

So one last request: please leave the game open as much as possible for external mission creation and interaction.
Document the format used for the mission (that shouldn't be too expensive), you'll save the community the long time it would take to understand otherwise and maybe we could come up with something more modern that could complement this new FMB.

And thanks if you've read my whole post :)

[SlowBurn68]

Will I have to go to flight school to play this game?

[Jimko]

Very interesting maps and accompanying tools!

I have never used a FMB, and perhaps never will, since life is far too busy for me to spend more time than I already can on WW2 flight sims.
But, it's interesting to see the scope of the SoW BoB chapter, at least, and to see the operational field that we will have to start with.

I'm glad that the mission builders seem to be pleased and look forward to (hopefully) what they can share with us eventually.

Thanks for this update.

[Abbeville-Boy]

i think this will be very great game so many options thanks

[LukeFF]

Yes, this has always been an issue I feel. 'Stationary Objects' have names e.g. searchlight, barrage balloon etc. but 'Objects' just have numbers. I'm sure there are hundreds that have never been used because they are so hard to find. Also, it's always been a bit irritating when moving through a list of objects with the scroll arrows, and just when you've found what you are looking for, you move the mouse away from the scroll arrow and the list jumps back to the top. It gets me every time!!

Seconded. I hope there are plans for a more intuitive way of finding these types of object.

Nice to see the map will be so big. :)

[Hunden]

I just want to know one thing. With the weather slider will it be possible to set up a class 5 hurricane in the channel maybe a couple of tornados on the side.:grin:

[ATAG_Dutch]

I just want to know one thing. With the weather slider will it be possible to set up a class 5 hurricane in the channel maybe a couple of tornados on the side.:grin:

I think you're referring to the 'weathering' slider, which isn't to do with weather, but connected to the amount of 'wear and tear' on the aircraft.

If you meant this as a joke, I apologise!:grin:

[baronWastelan]

Here's my ingenious idea: a "Mission Randomizer", nothing too complicated, just enough to give the player a little surprize. It would take an existing single-player mission, and moves parameters automatically, so enemy waypoints, height and direction are changed slightly. Also optionally changes enemy formation size bigger or smaller by user selected percentage amount.

Copyright 2010 BaronWastelan, no rights reserved :)

[ATAG_Dutch]

Seconded. I hope there are plans for a more intuitive way of finding these types of object.

Nice to see the map will be so big. :)

Ahem!... I think you mean 'thirded'!:)

[zakkandrachoff]

*The final name will be STORM OF WAR Cliff of Dover? Or Battle Of Britain?

*mmm, i believe that the airfield need have is own logo for the task or operation. Bombers, CAS, GAI, interceptors, destroyers.

*a hurricane, never do a mission made to land ing German airfield

*When we do a checkpoint, we will have some tool for know the autonomy of the airplane to know if we can return to the base or not?

*I want to see some Bf 109 or Bf 110 shooting that 20mm cannons bullets and see the smoke. Pleeeeeease

*In every place I read that Korea or Afrika will be the 2 series. For me, I don’t like Korea, I like Afrika or Battle For Moscow. I want my Bf 109 F-4

[K_Freddie]

ivagiglie:
While agreeing with most of your comments, I hope you realise that the GUI is not your standard windows GUI, but a DirectX GUI which is as much workload as the game itself, to develop.

Integrating this into the 3D environment of the map making, is a mission. Not to mention simplifying it for the 'lowest common denominator'.

Oleg at the moment is streaks ahead of the competition, and as we've all discovered..... it is difficult at first, but it's easiest in the long run.
:grin:

[buz13]

Well, I figure after a few months I will perhaps know what I'm doing....
Na...that's dreaming.
Extensive settings!......good thing I have been saving up for all these years for a new computer.:grin:

[Seeker]

Dissapointed.

Sure, there's lot's of great new functionality that those that mastered the current FMB will love.

I'm sure it'll produce great missions. But it's still the FMB! It's just been modded a bit.

And that's the problem, while being undoubtedably powerfull, the IL-2 FMB is a sucky program with a horrible interface and lousy documentation.

Yes, dedicated users can do wonders with it, just as they can in Unix apps.

But if that was enough in the 21 century there'd be no ipad.

I hope the rest of the game interface is better than this.

Nothing in this week's update makes the mission building functions more accessable or welcoming.

That, coupled with rumours of static campaigns only; will severely limit SOW's replayability in my view.

A modern game should be able to generate it's own content (dynamic campaigns!), and content generation should not be this complex at the lower levels.

It seems DCG will still be the way to go, which is sad after so much time in development.

[nearmiss]

I have built missions and campaigns for close to 10 years and helped develop mission builder tools/programs.

The FMB is improved a great deal from what I see. The sort functions alone will save hours of time building missions.

I suggest you take your negative banter to another forums. I doubt seriously it will be any better accepted elsewhere.

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Dissapointed.

Sure, there's lot's of great new functionality that those that mastered the current FMB will love.

I'm sure it'll produce great missions. But it's still the FMB! It's just been modded a bit.

And that's the problem, while being undoubtedably powerfull, the IL-2 FMB is a sucky program with a horrible interface and lousy documentation.

Yes, dedicated users can do wonders with it, just as they can in Unix apps.

But if that was enough in the 21 century there'd be no ipad.

I hope the rest of the game interface is better than this.

Nothing in this week's update makes the mission building functions more accessable or welcoming.

That, coupled with rumours of static campaigns only; will severely limit SOW's replayability in my view.

A modern game should be able to generate it's own content (dynamic campaigns!), and content generation should not be this complex at the lower levels.

It seems DCG will still be the way to go, which is sad after so much time in development.

I have build countless complex missions for my squad over 7 years. The IL2 FMB is one of the best mission builders I have found in any game and very easy to use once you get the hang of it. I am excited about all the new possibilities and I am happy everything what was good in it stays.

[Fafnir_6]

I have built missions and campaigns for close to 10 years and helped develop mission builder tools/programs.

The FMB is improved a great deal from what I see. The sort functions alone will save hours of time building missions.

I suggest you take your negative banter to another forums. I doubt seriously it will be any better accepted elsewhere.

This is the problem exactly, you (and Nausicaa) are experienced mission builders and no doubt this update is like early Xmas for you. For those of us who are just getting into mission building or who have only dabbled, the FMB of IL-2 (let alone this new mission builder with all the added functionality) has a very steep learning curve. I look at this update and see the power of this new mission builder as added potential so far on the horizon for me that I doubt I'll ever really get there. We haven't actually seen Battle of Britain yet so I can't comment on what sort of tutorials or documentation will be present but I will say that Seeker is spot on about the quality of the interface and documentation of the current IL-2 mission builder. Quite plainly, it stinks for first-timers.

I haven't seen the rumors about the lack of dynamic campaigns in BoB but the existence of the dynamic campaigns has helped mitigate the FMB learning curve in IL-2 for many of us. The efforts of community members such as yourselves also helps with this. Thanks :). Seeker raises a valid concern about BoB's replayability for mission building newbs, should the rumors prove accurate. Perhaps 1C should hire Lowengrin if there is a problem. If the rumor is true, it could turn off a large and potentially lucrative gamer segment that is needed to generate the revenue for all the expansions you and I wish for in BoB's engine.

It was not negative banter but concerns raised in good faith ( I'd be lying if I said I didn't share them).

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[BadAim]

I see that I have been waiting for 1 week just to see .... boring maps ...
After the last week's update session with BoB menus, I would have expected something more graphic/exiting.


I know, "I dont have the time, I'm tired", or what ever excuse we already heard here ... but is it so difficult to start the beta version and push on PRINT SCREEN on some ongoing air action ? I cant' believe that Oleg cannot delegate such an easy task to one of his guy's if he doesn't have the time himself.

Another one for my ignore list, don't worry Red, your in good company.

[BadAim]

This is the problem exactly, you (and Nausicaa) are experienced mission builders and no doubt this update is like early Xmas for you. For those of us who are just getting into mission building or who have only dabbled, the FMB of IL-2 (let alone this new mission builder with all the added functionality) has a very steep learning curve. I look at this update and see the power of this new mission builder as added potential so far on the horizon for me that I doubt I'll ever really get there. We haven't actually seen Battle of Britain yet so I can't comment on what sort of tutorials or documentation will be present but I will say that Seeker is spot on about the quality of the interface and documentation of the current IL-2 mission builder. Quite plainly, it stinks for first-timers.

I haven't seen the rumors about the lack of dynamic campaigns in BoB but the existence of the dynamic campaigns has helped mitigate the FMB learning curve in IL-2 for many of us. The efforts of community members such as yourselves also helps with this. Thanks :). Seeker raises a valid concern about BoB's replayability for mission building newbs, should the rumors prove accurate. Perhaps 1C should hire Lowengrin if there is a problem. If the rumor is true, it could turn off a large and potentially lucrative gamer segment that is needed to generate the revenue for all the expansions you and I wish for in BoB's engine.

It was not negative banter but concerns raised in good faith ( I'd be lying if I said I didn't share them).

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

Here's the thing though, Mate. The guys who will actually put the time into building good solid missions (and more than one or two) will take the time to learn how to use this interface. It really isn't that hard if you take some time to seek out the resources. I'll grant that better tutorial info from 1c would be nice, but the simple fact is that most of the user made content for some time will be from the "old hands" anyway. Just my $.02.

[Flying_Nutcase]

Hi Oleg,

A lot of great new features; looking really good. These features would be nice:

- File | Open opens at the last opened directory.
- The Object window remains opened after running the game from the FMB then returning to the FMB.
- Map icons show the direction of the runways.
- Waypoints show heading angle and altitude when selected. This would help a lot with writing briefings.
- A waypoint route can be summarised in text, again for briefings. Kind of like SOW's version of "Get Directions" in Google Maps, lol.
- A print option from the Briefing screen.
- As mentioned by others, at least the ability to add images to briefings (for 'recon' and 'intel' photos). Being able to add video would be a nice extra, but photos would be a huge improvement over just text.
- Biggest Request: Please remain open to feedback after release and budget time to add further features in the future! Thank you!!

Other Things
- Weathering and Fuel would be faster to enter as specific numbers rather than fiddling around with a slider control; or use both.
- "View a list of all objects in the mission." would read better as "View Mission Objects".
- Does 'Delete All' have a confirmation step?! Two? ;-)

Thanks for reading,


Flying Nutcase

[Avimimus]

I see that I have been waiting for 1 week just to see .... boring maps ...
After the last week's update session with BoB menus, I would have expected something more graphic/exiting.


I know, "I dont have the time, I'm tired", or what ever excuse we already heard here ... but is it so difficult to start the beta version and push on PRINT SCREEN on some ongoing air action ? I cant' believe that Oleg cannot delegate such an easy task to one of his guy's if he doesn't have the time himself.

*sigh*

Use imagination.

I've been flying BoB since 2005.

P.S. The answer is that it probably is more difficult than you think. Oleg's team is busy building the sim (while Oleg is handling PR - which he is very good at - and collecting information). Basically, avoid expecting too much - Oleg didn't have to post any updates.

[tityus]

Many have addressed points that I also would, so I won't repeat them. However, looking at the weather options, one old IL2 issue comes to mind. I hope it is already addressed. Bomb sight bubble: the ability to reset it on a key press (maybe auto in easy settings). With moving air masses, high level drops will suffer loss in precision, if bubble can't be reset.

Looking that Script label I wonder if we'll be finally able to program failures in the mission.

In a script language, things such:

- 2 minutes after take off, engine spits oil and dies.

- 5 minutes after engine start, mag 1 fails

etc...

thanks for the updates
té mais
tityus

[FlatSpinMan]

Just thought of a couple more questions.
Are the sliders for options like Destruction Tool and Brush size labelled so that we can understand what moving it left or right actually means.

Also, with features like Sleep for ships, labelling the boxes in which you input the time would be helpful so we know if it's hours and minutes, minutes and seconds, etc.

Personally I think the existing FMB arrangement is great as is. At least with this one, current builders will be able to produce content rapidly. If it was wholly new, everyone would be lost.

[Old_Canuck]

Oleg thanks for the free flight/sightseeing option.

[Chivas]

The FMB looks very good, with a considerable amount of new options. I found IL-2's FMB easy to use and quite intuitive without having to read much of the documentation. If your stuck a quick post on the forums will get you all the answers you need.

[dflion]

Thanks Oleg for this ‘part release’ on the new FMB,
I have just done a comparison with the old IL-2 FMB and very thankfully you have made only minimal changes – why change an excellent tool that helped give the IL-2 flight sim its very long life. I know some members have criticised the old interface and look of the FMB, I don’t think this matters. As long as the mission builders can quickly pick up the new FMB and make some great missions quickly, using some of the new options.

1. The Mission Description screen is basically the same with the addition of some new folders – I am very happy with this.
2. The map is excellent, including Normandy with more inland French airfields.
3. Placing waypoints are basically the same as IL-2, though I am interested in the ‘In-betweening’ tick boxes and what they mean? ‘Interpolate’ means to ‘insert’ – altitude, speed etc?
4. On the ‘View a list of Objects in the mission’ can you delete airfields that are not being used in the mission build to reduce the map megabyte count and help the ‘frame rate’?
5. The above question leads to another question – are all the airfields already created with buildings, hangars, AA guns, static aircraft and vehicles etc?
6. How does the screen ‘edit’, ‘view’, ‘name’ work and how does ‘Spline RoadRunway Concrete 20m’ work in the FMB?
7. The object ‘aircraft’ screen is very exciting to see – you obviously are holding back some more aircraft for the release, or later release.
8. In the Object ‘Group Properties’ screen you have added four flights to a squadron which is excellent. New boxes are ‘Formation’, Call-Sign’, aircraft weights, Ammo belts (type), Detonators (length of time), Weathering and ‘Spawn parked’. Could you explain ‘Spawn parked’ in more detail?
9. The ‘Player, skill, skin’ screen has some very good new options, Weathering, Briefing, Left nose art, Right nose art, Tactical number, Serial number and A, B and C band colours. Also a ‘Crew’ button to switch from player to crew.
10. What is missing from your pics is the ‘Mission Description’ screen – ‘Mission name’, Short’, Full description. I hope you can create a mission description, say on a lap-top computer and transfer it easily into the mission description area, without opening up the full fight-sim?

I hope this feedback is helpful. The Hurricane mission on the map is a ‘bit of a worry’ – taking-off from Fairfield (I think) and landing at Montdidier (I think) in occupied France, though there are no ‘front line markers’ down the Channel!

DFLion

[HFC_Dolphin]

Thanks for the update Oleg.

A simple question, about a very useful possible feature:
Can you create randomly filled maps?
In case you don't understand what I mean, let me explain.
What about going into an FMB's special section and choosing:
- Coordinates of the map to be used
- Borders
- Types and numbers of ground units per side
- Press "create" and an Autofiller create a ready to use template
- Then, if possible, just move with mouse some units if you want and enjoy the mission :)

It may sound difficult, but it shouldn't and it will be very useful IMHO.

The advantages are obvious and above all it is the simplicity and the time saving, which is of tremendous importance for many people.

Main "problem" is that engine of random placement of units should have a way to bypass the problem of placing units in areas where they can't be, i.e. a tank in the sea (lol), but this can have many solutions and you know it well.
Additional orders, such as placement of artillery behind and tanks in front (for the shake of logical placement of forces), could be added as well, and still all technical problems can be solved.

So, Oleg, what do you think of this?

[TUSA/TX-Gunslinger]

One of the wisest descisions ever made in Flight Sim history was keeping the format of the Il2 mission builder. I'm so glad to finally see the SOW version, and even more happy to see the the many additions, improvments and integration with SOW capabilities.

With the largest base of Combat Flight Sim mission builders in the world - it would have been a waste to change the basic struture of the FMB.

Anyone who is even marginally proficient in Il2 FMB (thousands), who have developed missions for every other combat flight sim, knows the pain and inefficiency of the other systems.

For the most part, I've flown multi-player in all its forms for the last 7 years or so. However, many times I've taken a break from MP to fly the many incredible, artisan crafted single player campaigns. Two that come to mind were made by Icefire for the Tempest which were so enjoyable, I actually flew them more than once.

Il2 created a guild of mission builders, skinners and movie makers that I never thought possible. As the sim matured, the talent grew. Keeping the familiar GUI and basic system will bring many of that talent to SOW.

Great move!

S!

Gunny

https://webspace.utexas.edu/joem/Forum%20Signatures/TexasGunslingerSIG-2010.jpg

[Upthair]

An idea about the image below:). In the "Action" slot, things like "Tight horizontal Turn", "Barrel Roll", etc, can perhaps be added for AI pilots. AI planes performing these manoeuvres endlessly can help us practise gunnery against online opponents.;)
Oops, I did not express myself clearly yesterday.

I think that one of the major roles of offline play is for a simmer to practise aerial gunnery, and adding those manoeuvres in the Action menu can expand this role :smile:.

In online dogfight, you often approach and attack an enemy fighter that is currently engaging a friendly of yours, and, for example, doing a tight horizontal or oblique turn towards your friendly. Also, the enemy is not aware of your approach and therefore continues the tight turn without any change. You then fire at an opponent busy fighting with someone else. This situation is particularly common when your tactics is hit-and-run or boom-and-zoom in a hot air combat. But you need good gunnery to attack such a target successfuly with only one pass, gunnery that lets you fire precisely at the enemy with high speed and from any angle.

So to create such single-player missions with the suggested new "Action" options will be a help for the simmer to practise gunnery against specific aerobatic manouvres. But we need to let the AI perform those manoeuvres repeatedly, without being influenced by the player's presence. :)

Well, it is just a small idea that might be worth listening to. Thanks a lot Mr Maddox for reading it! :grin:

http://uploadpic.org/storage/originals/2329e3j39sfr2snn3f2jl94sek.jpg

[Oleg Maddox]

The greatest update for mission builders ever.
Oleg: Which means the tab "script"?? Is that a trigger???
Could you explain a lil more about the briefing feature?
Thanks a lot!

Yes, it is for triggers.

[Oleg Maddox]

Hey Oleg,

will you change the visuals of the GUI of the FMB so it better fits the modern look of the overall sim?

Maybe just a bit. Its a tool, not the game, even it ios integrated in the game. It should looks like a tool really.

[Oleg Maddox]

I see that I have been waiting for 1 week just to see .... boring maps ...
After the last week's update session with BoB menus, I would have expected something more graphic/exiting.


I know, "I dont have the time, I'm tired", or what ever excuse we already heard here ... but is it so difficult to start the beta version and push on PRINT SCREEN on some ongoing air action ? I cant' believe that Oleg cannot delegate such an easy task to one of his guy's if he doesn't have the time himself.

I put only these things that I think is important and these that I want. I can't do only things that you personally ask.

And I don't really "must do" it every week.

Lets you'll try to ask the same from other companies. For example Microsoft. I will be very interested what the aswer you will get. May be you would try?

And finally, you may see, that for most here this update was really interesting... If you don't use FMB for making the sim even more intersting that it is in basis, then you simply don't understand the importance of the FMB. This tool makes the game even more interesting and allow many users to get new scenarios, campaigns, single missions, to invite then to play online your friends in the new scenario you did, etc ... Just try to think about it.

Experience of Il-2 show that this tool was one of the most important features of the sim. And here I just show the new tool, that in comparison to Il-2 FMB has a lot more new features. that was implemented by the great accumulation of users suggestions from around the world in years.

This feature is one of the main features that lacks many other games of one season life.

Just try to think about it a bit wider....

This update is one of the most important comparing to such as the first video even shown....

PS. Without such a tool there probably wasn't possible a lot of the mods in Il-2...

[kancerosik]

hi oleg!!!!

Can you give us some trigers examples?

thanks!!!!

[Richie]

LOL you tell him O. M.

[Schallmoser]

First I have to say it's nice to see so many new options and all the possibilities that these should open to us mission builders, good.

Now the not-so-good thing about the GUI:
it is terrible, really - it would have looked cool in 1995 but 15 years have passed since then.

I really would like to give feedback that could bring some improvements with a little work but this really needs to be rewritten ...
...
...take to understand otherwise and maybe we could come up with something more modern that could complement this new FMB.

And thanks if you've read my whole post :)

Hi everybody,
Thanks for the great update!
But I'd like to second what ivagiglie said. The major reason why I didn't use the IL2 mission builder much over all these years was the interface.

I know that right now all development effort is on much more important things but I think it would be worth to re-think the GUI.

I've been working as a software architect for 20 years now and in most of my projects the GUI was or is one of the key elements that are very important.
The way I would go, would be Qt4. Qt4 is a set of C++ libraries that are available for windows, linux, Mac and even embedded platforms. They include everything to make highly ergonomic and modern GUI applications with just a few lines of code.

If you provided some kind of front-end library in C++ for all the functionalities of the FMB, we (the community) would be able to give you a hand or even develop a standalone application that has all that ergonomic appeal and bells and whistles that would make the FMB an even more outstanding tool.

cheers,
Schallmoser

[Former_Older]

Looks like a fairly good selection of options so far

I know this is WIP.

Will we have option to set damage on aircraft?

[first-things-first]

Hi Oleg

In the fourth picture - showing airfield names.

You have "Sounthend" listed - firstly a spelling mistake - should be Southend (aka "London by the Sea" :grin:).

Secondly, it was called Rochford during the BoB period.

Will we get the pier - because I do love to be beside the seaside. :cool:

Regards

Andrew

[KOM.Nausicaa]

This is the problem exactly, you (and Nausicaa) are experienced mission builders and no doubt this update is like early Xmas for you. For those of us who are just getting into mission building or who have only dabbled, the FMB of IL-2 (let alone this new mission builder with all the added functionality) has a very steep learning curve.

Fafnir, the most difficult thing in IL2 FMB is understanding the interface. But just sit down an afternoon with a good cup and coffee and go through great tutorials like Flying Nutcase's excellent site: http://www.il2-fullmissionbuilder.com/trains.php
...and I promise before the day is over you got it under your knee. Once you got that you'll see how very logic and simple it really is. I am confident that the basic philosophy of the FMB will stay the same in SOW, with added options, or interface commands for stuff that previously only existed in key board shortcuts (like the "rotate group" command I saw in the shortcuts in the screenshots I guess).
Trust me.....learning to fly your plane properly in the sim is a thousand times harder than the FMB. ;-)

[322Sqn_Dusty]

With the trigger,

Could that be added to an airbase that normally will remain asleep when the 'planned'route is followed so that if you are offcourse that there will be a scramble?

Trains with AAA that keeps silent even the ac are in range till it's too late?

With triggers i'm just thinking of running the track for ships convoys etc, so the delay doesn't need to be calculated on the mission time itself..if you want to make another turn into the holding and gather area.

[Trooper117]

A few years ago I found that full mission builder site mentioned above and never looked back.
As I explored further I asked even more questions at the many IL2 mission builder forums on how to address other specific issues.. you'll find the majority have all the answers you need and some very helpful people.
Next it was making sure I had to research all the technical data required like climbing/cruising/max speeds etc to make missions accurate, followed by historical info on a particular battle.. I tell you, it became a way of life for me plus enhanced my knowledge on WWII aviation.
Jump in and give it a go, its great fun, sometimes frustrating, but extremely rewarding!

[Stiboo]

Some great ideas



Yes, actually the FMB is very easy to use and understand, it just takes a huge amount of time to put a campaign together. I've managed to make 5 campaigns in about 3 years..

With research, building and playtesting a campaign a figure of about 100-150 hours of work goes into building my campaigns, this doesn't include the time spent on custom skins by skinners helping me.

The thing that wastes the most time is searching and placing objects, ie- to make airfields and towns look ' lived in ' if there was a randomiser as suggested else where that could populate places this would save many hours!

Some other button or command that said " place 30 German bombers in X formation here " would be another great idea.

I wonder if we'll be able to place custom sounds and images into a mission?


Waiting for Oleg to come online and give us some more info!

[FG28_Kodiak]

Hi Oleg,
can we group Objects together and save this group to disk for later use?

[slm]

..and it would be great if one could copy/paste thouse object groups.
And rotate them (like often possible in vector drawing programs) once placed on map.

[ECV56_Lancelot]

There is a clear distinction between bomber and fighter formations. ;)


Lets talk about fighter formations first:

According to Wikipedia the Luftwaffe was the first to use a finger four formation in World War II. This tactic consisted of two pairs (Rotte) flying together (in a Schwarm): the leader and his wingman, and leader's "deputy" and his wingman. This gave them an advantage over outdated 3 plane VIC's that RAF flew in the beginning which required all three planes firing at the bombers, and while in formation at the same time (for "added punch" of all their guns combined).

As anyone who has ever flown in formation will tell you: when in a formation you're not flying at your top speed, and your maneuvers are strictly limited. Needles to say, this outdated 3 plane VIC attack strategy was invented by someone had no idea on how to attack a bomber stream. Logically, the tactic was abandoned in favor of the finger four formations and flying in pairs (and not attacking while flying in formation, naturally).

I would be interested to know when it was abandoned, prior or during BoB - because it might be another cool feature we could see in SoW - 3 plane VIC's attacking bombers...


Anyway, back to the bomber formations. Lets discuss basics:

A bomber stream usually consist of many groups flying in formation.
A group (Gruppe) formation consists of several squadrons (Staffel) flying together, or just a single squadron.
A group/squadron formation consist of elements. Element (Kette) is a basic formation, and depending how Elements are arranged one to another and in relation to the leader - defines a formation type.
Elements can number from 3 to (usually) 7 planes or even more.
The smallest element is a 3 plane VIC formation with one plane flying on each wing of the leader. Small elements can form larger elements.

So, we are talking about Elements here.

Bombers depended on their defensive guns - the goal was to put as many defensive guns on each side of the formation, and to spread them out evenly. Therefore a finger four would be an incomplete formation for an element, and you would need to add another plane to it. In other words - you need a VEE formation with 2 planes on each wing of the leader.

From my understanding, some of the formation types Luftwaffe used were:
5 plane VEE formations (Elements) stacked one behind and below another (~5 such VEE's forming a group). With more groups flying nearby (i.e. one on each side of the lead group).
3 plane VIC formations (smaller elements), stacked closely behind and below one (forming a large element), with other large elements flying on each side of the lead one - all together forming a group.
3 plane VIC formations (smaller elements), with additional elements on each side of the lead element (forming a large element), with other such elements flying behind or behind and below one another.

^^
The last one (just a large element) or a bomber Schwärme with 3 plane VIC formations (smaller elements or Kette), we were able to see in preview videos released so far.


I hope that this answers your question why I am interested in what is the limit on how many planes per element and what kind of formations will bombers fly in SoW. :)


This is something we were never able to experience in IL2 as the limit per element was only 4 planes. While IIRC (I never played the game) Rowan's Battle of Britain: Wings of Victory simulates this very nicely.

Crystal clear Thor, i thought it was about fighters. :)

[phoenix1963]

Yes, it is for triggers.

Oleg - Does this mean there will be a scripting language available in SoW for mission programmability? If so, that's really great news and will allow much more complex scenarios.

Long, long ago, you promised the SoW:BoB would include AI information flow from the Observer Corps (used inland where radar didn't work) to Sector Control Rooms, is that still true and are these events able to be used as triggers?

Thanks for the update,

56RAF_phoenix

[ECV56_Lancelot]

Hi Oleg,

- As mentioned by others, at least the ability to add images to briefings (for 'recon' and 'intel' photos). Being able to add video would be a nice extra, but photos would be a huge improvement over just text.

For all those that don't remember, it was confirmed long ago by Luthier that we will be able to add images to the briefings.
Can't tell about videos though! :)

[choctaw111]

Wow! Loads of great settings in there.
Thanks for this informative look into the mission builder.

[zakkandrachoff]

you can shows us how is the improvement to make different enemy route and this are aleatory at the moment of flight.

For example: make different options of chckpoint for bombers and when we die and want to play again the same mission, we have a surprise, is not the same that the last we flight.
that could be nice. the surprise element. jeje

[ElAurens]

Looks like a fairly good selection of options so far

I know this is WIP.

Will we have option to set damage on aircraft?

Chris,

I cannot wait till you get your hands on this, even if it isn't "our" favorite theater, your abilities will really shine with these new tools. Heck, even my little single missions will become even more alive.

Cheers,

Terry


P.S. Triggers. *Insert drool smilie here*

[tomaz]

Oleg;
I'm hoping my title says "thank you" (I used an online translator).

Disregard the negative jerks like Redwan and Seeker. They'll never be satisfied and are probably console gamers anyway (sarcasm intended LOL). ;)

The FMB looks great, lots of options. Yes it may take some time to learn how to use it but that's the price for having a great game like this. I love the IL2 FMB and it looks like you've added so much more to this next iteration of flight sim.

I won't ask the standard "what about X? Can you change Y?" It's a bit late in the process to be still asking for this type of stuff. :roll:

I'm sure you know from experience you will never please everybody but you will definitely please enough!

All the best.

[Bastor1981]

Looks like great news!

Although I have rather little experience with the FMB I immediately spotted some features that I was missing in the Il-2 FMB and some I didn't even know I might miss :grin:
(The interpolate alt/spd options haven`t been around in Il-2, or have they?, +weathering, +weather conditions, +apparently much more precise fuel/loadout options, +,+,+)

What intrigued me most, however, was the ammo belt option - can you tell us to what degree it will be possible to manipulate this as mission builder/player?

In any case: thanks a lot for the update, Oleg! :grin:

[Former_Older]

Chris,

I cannot wait till you get your hands on this, even if it isn't "our" favorite theater, your abilities will really shine with these new tools. Heck, even my little single missions will become even more alive.

Cheers,

Terry


P.S. Triggers. *Insert drool smilie here*

Hiya Terry!

Yes, triggers. Maybe even better than triggers, if we can run scripts when a certain event happens. I don't want to wish too hard but I'm already wondering if the scripts might do what I think they might do- imagine instead of just a trigger that spawns X number of planes when the player flies over point A, a script that runs, changing AI behavior based on where your flight went, and possibly triggering other scripts. If it's like I hope it is, this just scratches the tip of the proverbial iceberg! Fingers crossed :grin:

Since I took the plunge with UP, I have been finding myself looking at the lower Burma map and...then closing it before I start an adaptation of WSBS. But I have been working on my last set of skins for the 2nd Sqdn AVG. I just can't seem to get the time to wrap it up. I only have three or four planes left. I only took two years...is that bad? ;)

[nearmiss]

Most mission builders are probably like myself... very excited about this update.

The scripting ability is very important.

I recall trying to build missions campaigns using Pokryskinin air tactics in 1943 flying the P39. I could not do it because all flights would attack en masse. Pokryskinin's tactic was to maintain aircraft in altitude tiers until the air combat advanced. The upper altitude flights would incrementally drop into the combat with greater E onto the 109s and 190s destroying them with the P39 cannon.

This is just one example of course. The AI performance package should have some scripting options as well, to create tactical encounters.

The ability to arrange objects then group and store them as files would be a great help. Groups that would allow including objects with waypoints and other data would make mission building much more efficient. A further help would be to have timing you could set for certain objects within groups of objects at one time. Example : If you are setting delay time and direction for Flak guns at one time for all flak guns.

It would be a great help to have explosions and and other such objects on waypoints so you could build battles in process as you fly into combat areas.

Very important to have navigation ability for player to fly without having to follow waypoints. No matter if AI aircraft fly waypoints. Player flight should not be restricted to flight paths or altitudes. Autopilot for player should be determined with individual player settings on-the-fly.

Most programming tools developed for IL2 were just text editor tools that worked with the *.mis files. The QMT is a good example.

I can go on for pages and pages like many other mission builders.

One thing that would be awesome... to know the FMB will get periodic updates to further facilitate mission builders as new patches and addons are made available.

Thanks Oleg, I'm printing out all the screenshots and carefully studying them to get a more thorough understanding. Oleg there are some excellent mission builders who have posted this thread. It is good to see them here responding to your update.

[MD_Titus]

+1

I probably spent over 1000hrs with IL2, but I've never touched the FMB and intend to keep that way(for BoB too).

Although this seems to be a highly interesting update for the mission builders, to me, well, you could as well show me a black square, lol

Just add a few pics for us action porn lovers, lease. Thx. ;)
we've had how many months of action porn shots? good to see the guts of teh game imo, and the thing that gives the majority of players (off-liners) a reason to play the game and promote it to others. having played some fine scripted campaigns, where there were events that you could tell were a bit of a skilful compromise on what they really wanted the game to do...

this is a great update.
Dissapointed.

Sure, there's lot's of great new functionality that those that mastered the current FMB will love.

I'm sure it'll produce great missions. But it's still the FMB! It's just been modded a bit.

And that's the problem, while being undoubtedably powerfull, the IL-2 FMB is a sucky program with a horrible interface and lousy documentation.

Yes, dedicated users can do wonders with it, just as they can in Unix apps.

But if that was enough in the 21 century there'd be no ipad.

I hope the rest of the game interface is better than this.

Nothing in this week's update makes the mission building functions more accessable or welcoming.

That, coupled with rumours of static campaigns only; will severely limit SOW's replayability in my view.

A modern game should be able to generate it's own content (dynamic campaigns!), and content generation should not be this complex at the lower levels.

It seems DCG will still be the way to go, which is sad after so much time in development.
the fmb in il2 takes a bit of getting used to, but frankly compared to other games mission builders it is a piece of cake. i could use the fmb within a couple of hours of fiddling to create passable bomber stream intercepts. the things that will be very useful is being able to state a formation and number of planes, such as the luftwaffe vee, and plonk it on the map, then have it change course without a tonne of carefulm tinkering.

also, speed variations with altitude - whilst realistic, it does make for a bit of complication when setting large bomber formations that vary a lot in altitude from highest to lowest - will this still be in effect, or will speed be settable at some kind of universal, regardless of altitude, value? or will that be utterly irrelevant as you can, say, set a b17 box with so many aircraft as a single unit?

[bf-110]

You can customize airplane!Cool!
Also,the FMB looks quite the same of IL2.The classic design.

What those white airplanes in circles mean?

[Igo kyu]

Very important to have navigation ability for player to fly without having to follow waypoints. No matter if AI aircraft fly waypoints. Player flight should not be restricted to flight paths or altitudes. Autopilot for player should be determined with individual player settings on-the-fly.
The way I look at that is that the (single player) player should be able to change waypoints for his/her own aircraft/flight while the mission is in progress.

In fact, that's a wish for general single player play, not mission building.

[Oleg Maddox]

Hi everybody,
Thanks for the great update!
But I'd like to second what ivagiglie said. The major reason why I didn't use the IL2 mission builder much over all these years was the interface.

I know that right now all development effort is on much more important things but I think it would be worth to re-think the GUI.

I've been working as a software architect for 20 years now and in most of my projects the GUI was or is one of the key elements that are very important.
The way I would go, would be Qt4. Qt4 is a set of C++ libraries that are available for windows, linux, Mac and even embedded platforms. They include everything to make highly ergonomic and modern GUI applications with just a few lines of code.

If you provided some kind of front-end library in C++ for all the functionalities of the FMB, we (the community) would be able to give you a hand or even develop a standalone application that has all that ergonomic appeal and bells and whistles that would make the FMB an even more outstanding tool.

cheers,
Schallmoser

Probably the stand alone would be a great mistake. :) Like did it some others in the past. Also you will need to write so many other tools that to display the map, in 2D and 3D, all 3D objects and its options, change the features that render the engine, etc then you should be able to make BoB 3D engine. Don't you think so? :):):)

And if you can't use so simple in use tool..... just because you are thinking that it should have other interface and even didn't try to read instruction... translating your words why you didn't use it ever...

Who understand architecture of Il-2 builder begin to think by other way.... If my 6 year old son can use it easy, then i'm "sure" something wrong :):):) ..... When my older son (he was 10 years old) begun to use FMB, he also didn't read any instructions, but after a couple of hours try, he did the first his mission. The only one thing that I was need to say him - use button Ctrl...

The goal to keep the Il-2 looking new builder is that to get involved in mission building right from the release day a lot of people who was able to make it with Il-2 in the past. This is the most fast way to invite the other wide auditory of players to new missions and features right from the beginning... Ist it the right way?

If to speak about other way looking colors etc... then proably it may happens.

I know a lot of people photographers, that can't learn simple Canon's Digital Photo Professional program... I really learned it for 30 min...
I know the people who make really great photos, but can't learn simplest program Adobe Lightroom to make theri photos even more greater looking...
I know a lot of people who know well Adobe Photoshot, but can't use very simple for understanding Adobe Camera Raw module integrated in Photoshop.

In all these cases the problem is not in interface, but in understanding of process, sequence and principles.

And finally I did in the past the poll to keep ot not to keep the interface of Il-2 FMB...

I don't remember now exact digit, but more than 90 or 95% said to keep.

And we did it, adding a lot more features.

How it looks and how it works - it is too different thing.


PS. You may do a lot more nice buttons, including popup help(which sorry we can't produce with the small team for every feature of FMB), etc, but probably you can't make the other archtectiure of the FMB that is using BoB 3D engine. Trust me.


PS2. I know another one guy who was speaking many times that he is great specialist in Interface... I found then other... and many other people think the same now about him.... comparing with the old design that was...

[fruitbat]

i'm glad the GUI is the same.

for those who are familiar with the il2 FMB such as myself, it will make the transition very easy, and it seems as though my wish list for the FMB is complete, so i am very happy.

for those who are complaining about the GUI of the il2 FMB, and its difficulties, you obviously haven't bothered to spend more than 10 mins on it and gave up, its very easy to use if you can be bothered to spend a couple of hours learning it, and is far easier than other mission building stuff I've used.

A funkier GUI won't change the fact that you will still have to take some time to learn how to use it....

[Oleg Maddox]

the fmb in il2 takes a bit of getting used to, but frankly compared to other games mission builders it is a piece of cake.

Agree.
Some has nice picture but don't give any real fun as the result...

Pinnacle Studio has simplest for understanding interface... But can't be even comparable in quality of output to Adobe Premier Pro...

[Trooper117]

I have to admit, the first thing I thanked the gods for when I saw this update was the fact that the man has kept the FMB very close to the original.. that will make the transition for people like me to leap straight in and virtualy create missions from day one, even without learning all the new features.
The thing I would like to ask is that will there be some sort of pdf or booklet on release to directly explain all the new features?.. Thanks in advance!

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Don't know if that has been asked before Oleg, but is still possible to zoom into the map and switch automatically to in game rendered view? I loved that in IL2.

[nearmiss]

The way I look at that is that the (single player) player should be able to change waypoints for his/her own aircraft/flight while the mission is in progress.

In fact, that's a wish for general single player play, not mission building.

I don't think "the player" should ever fly waypoints and the player AI flight should receive directions ON-THE-FLY from the player. The player should always be able to do ON-THE-FLY changes as a real pilot and direct flight mates and other flights he is leader.

I realize this could create some issues, especially if the pilot is flying in where the flight leader is AI. IMO, the player should take command and be incharge of all flights from the start. My reasoning... the player pilot has a brain.

The AI have to have waypoints/alternative waypoints and have to be restricted, since they can't think.

As I recall, when I first started with IL2 I flew some campaigns and worked my way up in rank. I can tell you most of the time it was a nightmare, because the AI flight leaders did so many dumb things often it might take a mission refly a half dozen times to advance.

I gave up on all flights where AI commanded flights within the first week of flying the IL2.

My discussion about this in FMB may not seem applicable, but the FMB maybe a best place to define this in the programming for the SOW.

-----------------------

The FMB GUI is fine, and it won't require as much time to learn how to use improved FMB.

[Oleg Maddox]

A funkier GUI won't change the fact that you will still have to take some time to learn how to use it....

Exactly

[McHilt]

The interface is good; simple yet functional... ever seen lightwave's interface?
compared to that this interface is easy to use, like it should be, and it has always worked like a dream for me in IL-2. :)
See, some people want instant stuff, like the ready-made generation, well...
sometimes it requires some work, some effort to learn something, which makes the FMB even more interesting. It looks bad? Oh, it doesn't imho... and who cares? it works, after all. :mrgreen:

Don't know if that has been asked before Oleg, but is still possible to zoom into the map and switch automatically to in game rendered view? I loved that in IL2.

Oh, that was really nice indeed

[nearmiss]

I hope the sort options for the objects database is very complete.

That may be the case, but since I cannot see the sort options I mention this.

It is very tedious to find and select relative objects in scans of the large databases.

Working efficiently with the databases of objects in FMB should be priority.

-------------------

It is good you have enlarged the scroll blocks on the sides of the FMB map pages.

Those little scroll blocks in the IL2 have often been difficult to use because of the small size.

[fruitbat]

@Oleg,

1) will the 4 plane per flight limit still apply as in il2?

2) if so, will we be able to clone flights such as in 3rd party apps such as Shift E's Quick Mission Tuner, or is this what the 'group properties' is for?

[nearmiss]

@Oleg,

1) will the 4 plane per flight limit still apply as in il2?

2) if so, will we be able to clone flights such as in 3rd party apps such as Shift E's Quick Mission Tuner, or is this what the 'group properties' is for?

Actually, the QMT is an editor of the *.mis files with pre-sets and uses IL2 objects databases items that are selectable within the QMT. The ability to work and edit the *.mis (ini type files) would definitely be an improvement. This could all be done through the FMB of course.

Shift E has done an excellent job of keeping up with database items in the addons and patches of IL2.

[Osprey]

Dear Oleg,

Could I respectfully ask you not to waste your time on trying to justify yourself to people that are obtuse regarding a feature because you have limited time and there are many very valid and interesting questions asked that I would love to see answered :)

As a mission builder myself, I concur with a number of the other questions raised but here's a few things not mentioned:

1. Does the new FMB allow the use of AI in dogfight mode maps? Indeed, does co-op and dogfight now share features as can be achieved with mods in il2 today? In IL2 AI was fixed to co-op but this function was modded with considerable success. This is important because if one were flying a BoB map online I would like to face a large formation on it's way to bomb England, not sporadic pairs of bombers on their way to individual targets. There are other immersive advantages.

2. Would we have the ability to limit the supply of aircraft and their loadouts at airfields? Land damaged and be destroyed and the aircraft is removed from the pool since it is taken for repair
3. Can we group items together? When I set up AAA at an airfield I like to surround it with sandbagging and ammo boxes, perhaps a truck and men. This takes a lot of time - I would like to select all these items as a group, perhaps even save them as a custom object name 'AAA post' and then place and align them on the airfield at once.
4. Can we group squadrons into formations as one, then have a method to split them to different targets? I am referring to multiple squadrons of mixed types into gaggles of aircraft. Formations in the BOB often arrived as one large group then split off in different directions to their targets when over England. In FMB getting multiple flights to meet up is very hard to manage.
5. Will the AI have the sense to stop following their leader if he gets damaged and starts to lose position? Presently one only needs to hit up the leader and the rest are happy to die with him
6. Are their other maps or can this one be extended? Britain was bombed all over during the BoB, eg the Bristol based factories at Filton and Coventry in the Blitz are obvious examples.
7. When assigning escort duties for fighters can you simplify the method? Presently you have to set a target for each flight - very painful
8. Can we create our own custom columns or formations which we can save as a new object/item/template? This would be a useful feature for longer term campaigns
9. How will the points system work? Can we assign custom points values in the mission? 100 per engine and rewarding players who run off and land per kill is pretty basic and doesn't help make good missions in online squadron competition fighting such as USL (www.uslglobal.com). Please feel free check out their scoring system which makes for more realistic combat scenarios.

Others have asked my other questions, particularly about waypoint timings and groupings - many thanks if you can find time for these.
~S~

[ECV56_Lancelot]

From what i see on the group properties of a flight. Will it be possible to put flyable aircraft as stationary objects on an airfield?
Let me explain, i'm not talking about stationary objects with simplified damage modell like we have on IL-2, but put on the airfield the true aircraft that will work as a target.
This way we can use on airfield bombing missions stationary aircrafts with the complete damage model and they will get realistic damage, and we leave the stationary objects aircraft for use for scenery effects only and saving at the same time resources. But when an airfield will get bombed, we can have a more realistic behaviour to damage from the aircrafts, not just the simplified hit point system.

Hope it is clear what i'm trying to say. :)

[fruitbat]

Actually, the QMT is an editor of the *.mis files with pre-sets and uses IL2 objects databases items that are selectable within the QMT. The ability to work and edit the *.mis (ini type files) would definitely be an improvement. This could all be done through the FMB of course.

Shift E has done an excellent job of keeping up with database items in the addons and patches of IL2.

umm, not sure if your mixing up mission mate with QMT maybe. Missionmate certainly does use presets.

Maybe you can use presets in QMT, but i use QMT to tweak co-ops a lot, and one of the functions I use alot, is to clone an existing set of waypoints from within any .mis file that you've loaded in, and are working on.

so if theres already a flight of 4 bombers, in the mission, i can just clone that flight, select vertical and horizontal offset, and hey presto, i can have 12 bombers in that formation, within that mission.

[Schallmoser]

Probably the stand alone would be a great mistake. :) Like did it some others in the past. Also you will need to write so many other tools that to display the map, in 2D and 3D, all 3D objects and its options, change the features that render the engine, etc then you should be able to make BoB 3D engine. Don't you think so? :):):)

And if you can't use so simple in use tool..... just because you are thinking that it should have other interface and even didn't try to read instruction... translating your words why you didn't use it ever...

Who understand architecture of Il-2 builder begin to think by other way.... If my 6 year old son can use it easy, then i'm "sure" something wrong :):):) ..... When my older son (he was 10 years old) begun to use FMB, he also didn't read any instructions, but after a couple of hours try, he did the first his mission. The only one thing that I was need to say him - use button Ctrl...

The goal to keep the Il-2 looking new builder is that to get involved in mission building right from the release day a lot of people who was able to make it with Il-2 in the past. This is the most fast way to invite the other wide auditory of players to new missions and features right from the beginning... Ist it the right way?

If to speak about other way looking colors etc... then proably it may happens.

I know a lot of people photographers, that can't learn simple Canon's Digital Photo Professional program... I really learned it for 30 min...
I know the people who make really great photos, but can't learn simplest program Adobe Lightroom to make theri photos even more greater looking...
I know a lot of people who know well Adobe Photoshot, but can't use very simple for understanding Adobe Camera Raw module integrated in Photoshop.

In all these cases the problem is not in interface, but in understanding of process, sequence and principles.

And finally I did in the past the poll to keep ot not to keep the interface of Il-2 FMB...

I don't remember now exact digit, but more than 90 or 95% said to keep.

And we did it, adding a lot more features.

How it looks and how it works - it is too different thing.


PS. You may do a lot more nice buttons, including popup help(which sorry we can't produce with the small team for every feature of FMB), etc, but probably you can't make the other archtectiure of the FMB that is using BoB 3D engine. Trust me.


PS2. I know another one guy who was speaking many times that he is great specialist in Interface... I found then other... and many other people think the same now about him.... comparing with the old design that was...


Hi Oleg,
thank you for answering my post. I really did not want to say that the old or new FMB was not good. It is the ergonomics I was talking about.
Things like when you open for example the object window to modify plane settings then you go fly the mission and come back to FMB it would be nice to see tha same window with the same size at the same position. :)

Another great feature would be to be able to register macros to do repeating tasks. for example:
1.select a flight
2.<hit start macro button>
3.set certain army, altitude loadout and other settings.
4.<hit stop macro button> FMB asks you for the name to register the macro under.
then you can select another flight and apply the same macro. This could save a lot of time.

Concerning the rendering in 2D and 3D, this could be done by your library for example in form of an ActiveX control that has its COM interface to control the functionalities from within QT. QT would only invoke well defined functions to create objects, delete them, controll zooming, panning etc. but all the real work would be done by your engine.

Anyways I did not intend to criticize your work but just give my thoughts. I'll be happy with whatever you decide :grin:

cheers
Schallmoser

[kendo65]

on fmb

I remember being a little surprised and underwhelmed by the starkness of the il2 fmb gui when I first used it - in comparison to the slickness of the rest of the product. But as I started to use it and learned how it worked my opinion changed. It really did what it had to do pretty well. 'Functional' is maybe the right word.

I think the fmb is a bit like the engine and transmission of a car: in comparison to the shiny bodywork and plush upholstered interior it's not particularly pretty, but it's tucked away out of sight of the casual driver / user so it doesn't have to be. I think the new SOW fmb will still feel a bit like 'diving under the bonnet' ('hood' for U.S. readers ;) )

It could no doubt be made to look slightly more 'contemporary' (Windows 7 rather than Win 95 style text boxes, etc) fairly easily, but i'm pleased to recognise the overall feel that I'm used to in il2.

Some comments on the new features:

weathering on the slider is good - presumably we can then choose to keep it off if desired (thought that some of the skinners might prefer to have complete control of this aspect of their skins? - though will that work in the campaign ??)

filtering on the objects / aircraft is welcome

#passes on the Waypoint tab I suspect will be useful

having radio silence as an option suggests that the game will do a very realistic job of simulating limited defensive awareness and allowing the possibility of surprise attacks? I suppose that if radar is being accurately modelled then this needs to be done too. Raises the possibility of some interesting bombing missions - low level, under the radar, strict RT silence!

the ability to set initial formation in the fmb is much needed. As others have asked, I'd be interested in knowing what features are available for controlling large squadron-level and bigger formations as one group?

Look forward to hearing more about the weather and scripting options :)

[dflion]

Most mission builders are probably like myself... very excited about this update.

The scripting ability is very important.

I recall trying to build missions campaigns using Pokryskinin air tactics in 1943 flying the P39. I could not do it because all flights would attack en masse. Pokryskinin's tactic was to maintain aircraft in altitude tiers until the air combat advanced. The upper altitude flights would incrementally drop into the combat with greater E onto the 109s and 190s destroying them with the P39 cannon.

This is just one example of course. The AI performance package should have some scripting options as well, to create tactical encounters.

The ability to arrange objects then group and store them as files would be a great help. Groups that would allow including objects with waypoints and other data would make mission building much more efficient. A further help would be to have timing you could set for certain objects within groups of objects at one time. Example : If you are setting delay time and direction for Flak guns at one time for all flak guns.

It would be a great help to have explosions and and other such objects on waypoints so you could build battles in process as you fly into combat areas.

Very important to have navigation ability for player to fly without having to follow waypoints. No matter if AI aircraft fly waypoints. Player flight should not be restricted to flight paths or altitudes. Autopilot for player should be determined with individual player settings on-the-fly.

Most programming tools developed for IL2 were just text editor tools that worked with the *.mis files. The QMT is a good example.

I can go on for pages and pages like many other mission builders.

One thing that would be awesome... to know the FMB will get periodic updates to further facilitate mission builders as new patches and addons are made available.

Thanks Oleg, I'm printing out all the screenshots and carefully studying them to get a more thorough understanding. Oleg there are some excellent mission builders who have posted this thread. It is good to see them here responding to your update.

Some very good observations on your post nearmiss. With the 'scripting trigger point' option you will be able to make much more precise missions that simulate historical situations. It looks like there will be much better control of the AI aircraft.

The ability to arrange and group objects and store them as one collective file would be a great time saver. For example a complete airfield, target area or a large bomber formation with waypoints. Timing is also a major issue in IL-2 mission building - trying to co-ordinate everything to arrive at the same point of time. It also looks like this problem has been addressed in the new FMB.

Independent navigation without following waypoints would be another excellent option with voice command 'trigger points'.

The 'scramble', 'idle', 'Script Spawn C' tick boxes in the 'Group properties' tab most likely answers 'FlatSpinMan's' question on taxi and take-off from dispersed positions.

Anyway the main thing is that very thankfully Oleg has kept the FMB format basically the same, with some very exciting additions. Hopefully he will be able to give us all some more detail without giving too much away?

DFLion

[heywooood]

beautiful update Mr Maddox.

with these few shots you demonstrate rather clearly the quantum leap forward you have achieved over the Il2 FMB.

mission builders should be extremely giddy about these few 'maps' haha

as to the the few who do not yet realize the importance of the features and capabilities of this new tool - just relax - the people who do understand it will be providing you with hours of incredibly imersive action with it, soon after SoW is released! be sure...

I can see already how some of these features will benefit future SoW releases (Pacific Theater nudge nudge) so as to provide a far more seamless progression through all phases of WWII in the air.

[C_G]

One word: "triggers"

Hurray!

[Blackdog_kt]

First of all, thanks for the weekly update. I'm not a mission builder, but i'm a mission flyer and the better the editor is, the more enjoyable the missions we get from our talented community members are going to be. So, thanks for improving the FMB for all of us.

With that being said, let me go on to a couple of specific points...

A very interesting update this week Oleg, thanks. Nice to see the full map at last. Should allow for some great missions. Is there a possibility in future that the map could be extended northwards to include the 12 Group fields or would that be pushing the current hardware too far? It would be nice one day to reenact the 12 group Big Wing attacks.

Someone mentioned specifying waypoint times of arrival and having the FMB work out the necessary speed to get there on time. This would be a great feature and was implemented incredibly well by the Tornado simulator years ago.

As far as I remember, you could do things both ways i.e. specify arrival time OR speed for a waypoint. If the time you specified required an impossible speed to get there, the waypoint track changed colour to red I think. I used to spend hours creating multi-flight attacks which would come in from different directions at different heights and speeds at the critical moment to avoid the blasts from the previous pass. A very enjoyable experience I've got to say.

The map looks very fine resolution which is great. I'm hoping we can zoom in and out smoothly (like google earth), rather than in clunky increments. A slight concern is the size of the waypoint marker....will it still allow for very accurate positioning Oleg?

Thanks Oleg.:grin:

Actually you raise a very important point. Since we've been told we'll have accurate systems modelling and that the same rules will aply to the AI (that is, they won't be invulnerable to overheat anymore), there could be cases where flights couldn't reach the waypoints without breaking their engines.

For example, a flight of fighters might be able of a 350mph airspeed but only for brief periods of time (like war emergency power settings), with their sustainable airspeed being much lower. Or, they might be unable to reach higher speeds until burning some fuel and getting lighter.

Throwing the indicated-to-true airspeed conversions and ground speed calculations into the mix could get interesting, as they depend heavily on weather conditions (which are adjustable and also possible to dynamically change).

So, in order to ensure a flight overflying a waypoint at a specified time the mission editor would have to:

1) Calculate the needed ground speed (GS).

2) Reference the GS value with the weather conditions set for the mission and extrapolate the corresponding IAS value the aircraft would need to fly.

3) Check the needed IAS value for the specified leg of the flightplan against the aircraft specifications and operating limits.

I'm not a mission builder but this is very interesting, especially if you consider the possibility of some randomness in the way the weather evolves. For example if you have built a mission that relies on some closely orchestrated attacks and/or depends highly on keeping to the schedule, an occurence as simple as a change in wind direction and strength could make the mission goal very easy to achieve (ie, the flight reaches their target area with time to spare), dangerous or even totally unattainable.

For instance think about this scenarion in a future add-on, due to strong head winds the train carrying the enemy generals has departed when the mosquitos reach the target area and now they have to split up and look for it by following the railway lines. Certainly not a welcome event when a quick "one pass and away" mission turns into having to prolong the amount of time you will be flying low inside enemy airspace.


Great update Oleg, mission building will be much improved, thanks.

One small request:
would it be possible to get the AA to lay a barrage in front of bomber formations as well as directly at them . At the moment most of the AA arrives behind the formation. I think this would add greatly to the visual effect for bomber pilots as they near the end of their final run to the target.
Waiting impatiently for the release of your work.:grin:
cheers,
Ibis.

Very nice of you to bring this up. I still remember when i flew my first mission in B17:the mighty 8th (the sequel to the original) back in the day and the reason is just that feature. Having to fly steadily and sedately into an already well developed flak barrage in order to maintain bomb aiming accuracy was one of the most memorable events of all my simulated careers.

[Fafnir_6]

Fafnir, the most difficult thing in IL2 FMB is understanding the interface. But just sit down an afternoon with a good cup and coffee and go through great tutorials like Flying Nutcase's excellent site: http://www.il2-fullmissionbuilder.com/trains.php
...and I promise before the day is over you got it under your knee. Once you got that you'll see how very logic and simple it really is. I am confident that the basic philosophy of the FMB will stay the same in SOW, with added options, or interface commands for stuff that previously only existed in key board shortcuts (like the "rotate group" command I saw in the shortcuts in the screenshots I guess).
Trust me.....learning to fly your plane properly in the sim is a thousand times harder than the FMB. ;-)

Cool! Thanks for the link :). My point in this thread is that this sort of tutorial should have been included with IL-2 (perhaps not in the original release but certainly in a later patch). Here's hoping this sort of tutorial will show up integrated with BoB either in the initial release or in some future update.

Cheers and thanks again :)

Fafnir_6

[zaelu]

The FMB should be more "available" to new players or players with less time to study it thoroughly.

IL-2 FMB had many many limitations that were bypass by experienced builders only or even with external tools.

BoB shouldn't have this. BoB should have an explosion of new missions created by as many players as possible. And this is not possible with a FMB that looks like the insides of a nuclear bomb.

Let me make a comparison,

First 3ds max versions were pretty capable in pro's hands... but a lot of creativity was held off by it's hard interface. Once the interface had became more intuitive a lot of new creations had appear from the hands of people that normally would do nothing in the first versions.

FMB should have more appealing interface... those old WIN95 style windows can be changed in few minutes by an artist so they look more 2010 and not like a "oops... this looks dangerous, let's close it".
FMB should have a lot of buttons visible for quick access and not the necessity to click 2-3 menus and tick cryptic options. Contextual pop up menus, buttons, etc.

Take a look at modern game sandbox editors... many are a pleasure to work with and inspire creativity... sure a craw bar can beat nails in the head like a modern colorful rubberized handle hammer... but the kid that would help you normally is just not attracted by the job.

A good starting point would be a merge between DCS "FMB" and IL-2 FMB.

[Flying_Nutcase]

For all those that don't remember, it was confirmed long ago by Luthier that we will be able to add images to the briefings.
Can't tell about videos though! :)

Roger that Lancelot, thanks for the confirmation. Awesome news.

[Flying_Nutcase]

Cool! Thanks for the link :). My point in this thread is that this sort of tutorial should have been included with IL-2 (perhaps not in the original release but certainly in a later patch). Here's hoping this sort of tutorial will show up integrated with BoB either in the initial release or in some future update.

Cheers and thanks again :)

Fafnir_6
Glad they've been useful. :-) Whatever doesn't come in the Storm of War manual will soon be covered by the community, and a book will rarely better video to demonstrate how-to instructions IMHO, especially for beginners.


Flying Nutcase

[The Kraken]

Thanks for another nice update - very interesting and a welcome change from "yet another burning plane" :)

I'm also curious about the scripting possibilities, i.e. how much the behaviour of objects can be influenced and what triggers there are. Would be great to have fine control over the AI through the mission files through scripts. But I guess we'll all find out soon.

As for the interface, there is a certain complexity in mission making you cannot design away, but for sure the Il2 editor did have some drawbacks (no copy and paste, no filtering of lists etc.). It looks like at least some of those issues have been taken care of, and as long as that is the case I couldn't care less about how slick the interface looks.

[House M.D.]

The FMB should be more "available" to new players or players with less time to study it thoroughly.

IL-2 FMB had many many limitations that were bypass by experienced builders only or even with external tools.

BoB shouldn't have this. BoB should have an explosion of new missions created by as many players as possible. And this is not possible with a FMB that looks like the insides of a nuclear bomb.

Let me make a comparison,

First 3ds max versions were pretty capable in pro's hands... but a lot of creativity was held off by it's hard interface. Once the interface had became more intuitive a lot of new creations had appear from the hands of people that normally would do nothing in the first versions.

FMB should have more appealing interface... those old WIN95 style windows can be changed in few minutes by an artist so they look more 2010 and not like a "oops... this looks dangerous, let's close it".
FMB should have a lot of buttons visible for quick access and not the necessity to click 2-3 menus and tick cryptic options. Contextual pop up menus, buttons, etc.

Take a look at modern game sandbox editors... many are a pleasure to work with and inspire creativity... sure a craw bar can beat nails in the head like a modern colorful rubberized handle hammer... but the kid that would help you normally is just not attracted by the job.

A good starting point would be a merge between DCS "FMB" and IL-2 FMB.

A lot of valid points by zaelu, a man who knows what he's talking about.

I won't say more, because these screenshot don't tell us everything and maybe the release product is something different than what we think at this moment.

But yes, I think that all of us who've created missions in FMB know its problems and hope to see them solved in BoB.

Of course, we all know (and maybe Oleg and team use this advantage) that there are a lot of people who would spend hundreds of hours in FMB or developing 3rd party tools, in order to bypass original FMB's problems.

All in all, even if we only get the same 10+ years old FMB, there will be people willing to spend their time for the good of the community.

But, closing as started, we have to wait because these assumptions are based in a few screenshots and not a detailed analysis of new (hopefully) FMB.

[kendo65]

...

I won't say more, because these screenshot don't tell us everything and maybe the release product is something different than what we think at this moment.

...

All in all, even if we only get the same 10+ years old FMB, there will be people willing to spend their time for the good of the community.

But, closing as started, we have to wait because these assumptions are based in a few screenshots and not a detailed analysis of new (hopefully) FMB.

I think from reading Oleg's comments that any changes will be minor - colours and (maybe) the style of windows. The basic structure of the fmb will remain as shown - for reasons given already - familiarity and ease of adaptation for people experienced in il2 fmb.

I think also, that a change of gui to something very slick and modern looking will not reduce the unavoidable complexity that arises from having so many different variables to control - the underlying wealth of detail and options will still be overwhelming to some. A gui change is not a panacea. Probably more useful would be better documentation on how to use it.

Also, I personally don't want to wait another 6 months for the gui to be rebuilt from scratch.

[nearmiss]

A note on briefings

We have always needed a more structured approach to creating briefing documents. Having pre-sets on drop down entry selectors for time of day, weather, etc. Having a dedicated block for Mission ID, Mission description
In other words we need an efficient way to create briefings that have several consistent possible values, along with a lengthly description.

Combat briefings should be formatted wiht basic criteria to all missions, with a text box for elaborating on the description of the mission. Each mission briefing always requires specific information that pretty well applies to all mission briefings. A large text entry box could complete the briefing package,

This is an important issue. Any mission builder can tell you just how time consuming and tedious it becomes after spending so much time actually building each mission... then having to create briefing decriptions.

I see the briefing mentioned in the GUI, but I don't really know how far that goes or just what it means.

All it would basically require is a text editor with some pre-sets and a large text box to create consistent briefing documents.

[BadAim]

I'm with the guys who like the minimal changes to the GUI. It's really not all that hard to use the system in IL2 once you have built a few missions with it. It looks like SOW will be a real step up, remember guys, a familiar GUI does not necessarily mean familiar problems. Half of the trouble I've ever had was getting the AI to behave, and that really isn't an FMB problem anyway. It looks to me like a lot of the rest have been addressed. I'm looking forward to cut 'n paste, and it looks like we'll have a lot more interaction with the AI through the FMB (and I'm cautiously optimistic that they'll be smart enough to follow the instructions.

So far I like what I see, but please, please Oleg make sure we can see a description of the objects, and not just a number. I would also like to have infinitely nestable folders for missions, and not just a couple levels like we have in IL2. (as a matter of fact it would be nice if we could build our own folder structure for the objects and such)

[BadAim]

A note on briefings

We have always needed a more structured approach to creating briefing documents. Having pre-sets on drop down entry selectors for time of day, weather, etc. Having a dedicated block for Mission ID, Mission description
In other words we need an efficient way to create briefings that have several consistent possible values, along with a lengthly description.

Combat briefings should be formatted wiht basic criteria to all missions, with a text box for elaborating on the description of the mission.

This is an important issue. Any mission builder can tell you just how time consuming and tedious it becomes after spending so much time actually building each mission... then having to create briefing decriptions.

I see the briefing mentioned in the GUI, but I don't really know how far that goes or just what it means.

Yeah, It would be nice if the FMB just threw the basic info into the quick brief for us like no. of planes, basic types, etc. then we can always elaborate if we want.

[brando]

Yeah, It would be nice if the FMB just threw the basic info into the quick brief for us like no. of planes, basic types, etc. then we can always elaborate if we want.

Yeah, I gave up writing long and interesting briefings for the Co-op crowd 'cos hardly anyone reads them! ;)

Personally it's gratifying to see the shape of the new FMB is not radically different from the IL2 original. Learning the new settings and applying them onto a well-known framework will be better than trying to learn a whole new system, and I hope to be writing missions quite early on.
Another point is that I expect to still be flying FB after Storm of War commences - specifically 4.10 and UP - which is another good reason to have a similar FMB setup.

Thanks for this exciting update,

Brando

[Insuber]

Hi Oleg,

Nice updare... Speaking about interface, I have a simple request to facilitate navigation: in the minimap when flying, or before takeoff one should be able to draw lines between waypoints with mouse click and draw, getting distances and headings. simple yet very useful.

Cheers,
Insuber

[O_Smiladon]

S! Guys,

I like the fact that the FMB is not far off from the IL2 MB, reason being that yes it is a very easy MB to learn and not so technical. I fly Rise Of Flight as well and there MB is very complicated to learn but still very good.

So that fact the learning curve is not going to be so steep is a good thing IMO so well done Oleg and keep up the good work.

Merry Christmas Oleg to you and your family and your team.

O_Smiladon

[7IAP_Maxel]

Hello Oleg, thank you for the surprise you gave us for these weekends.

There are some ideas and concerns I would like to share with you and readers.


It would be so nice to have few options to save .mis file in both ways, binary and in plain text. Encrypted binary .mis file with password that even the host can not be able to look up into the mission waypoint, aircraft types, directions, qty and e.t.c..
It would be so nice if the briefings would be in UTF-8 or UTF-16 encoding. BBCodes would be also nice to see…
As I can see the waypoint displays only # of the route. (See pic. #shot_20101203_155528 copy.jpg) would be nice to see an interpolated speed and altitude of the group and/or single aircraft(s). Desired to see the speed in Km/h or mph or feet for airborn, naval and ground units (I am sorry, but in Il2 speed in meters per sec. looks useless).
The editable text line console below the map would be amazing and highly desirable. By placing any unit on the map would put a text line in the console.
Version, author, revisions, and dates tags inside plain text of the .mis file highly desirable.
It seems that the left scroller has been inherited from il2. Can you please to assign Map’s zoom in/out functions for the mouse scroll wheel? Shift + Mouse Rectangle drag is also highly desirable.
I know that the map at certain zoom levels (usually after 65%) displays as 3d map. It would be so nice to have export to .png file highly zoom able detailed map.
Can we able to select and save export/import the group of the objects? Let say I have to put few trees, few ground units, some static units and few human figurines. I want to save this scene and export as named preset in order to use this preset in future. Or it would be so nice to have a repository for the convenience all of FMB developers in order to have the possibility export and import these presets.
Is it possible to introduce the script code language inside missions? If Bf109-E3 in range [1Km..5Km] and qty <= 4 then spawn(type:Spitfire5, qty:4, skills:veteran, action:intercept) else lookup(AAGun, 4, veteran)
Is it possible to make a recon mission for the AI recon aircraft with possibility to take b/w photo shots and then insert these photo snap shots in to other missions?


Oleg, wish you the best to you and your team.

[nearmiss]

Oleg, if possible.

Allow beta release of limited version of SOW to a few competent mission builder enthusiasts. It could be a very limited beta that is just FMB with SOW data to work with.

You could save alot of time. I know there are some MB who have been building missions for close to 10 years who would be pleased to help.

You could get some very good input from the people who know the finer points and issues of mission building using the IL2 FMB and 3rd party FMB tools.

This would allow you to get some very excellent information about the FMB tool you plan to release. It would provide you information you really need as far as the capabilities of the FMB usage from people who have years of experience with it.

I'm sure you could count on IL2 MB users to pitch in help.

[SlipBall]

FMB very cool and powerful, lot's of time involved, and much testing. It certainly will be more of a pleasure with the new refinements, can't wait.:grin:


Getting an "Error message" after a placement if in conflict, would be awesome

[Freycinet]

PS. You may do a lot more nice buttons, including popup help(which sorry we can't produce with the small team for every feature of FMB), etc, but probably you can't make the other archtectiure of the FMB that is using BoB 3D engine.

Oleg, if other 3rd party volunteers make the texts for pop-up help bubbles, do you think someone on your team could put them into the FMB? - That would be a great "division of labour".

Sorry you spent so much time responding to a provocateur, but well, your choice...

[VectorForFood]

Oleg, just dropping in to say it looks fantastic... I hate to wish my life away, but this looks FANTASTIC!~

[Freycinet]

Ok, I have to say I am disappointed to see that the 12. Group area is not part of the map.

I know it is necessary to draw a line somewhere, but still, the whole battle is incomplete without part played by 12. Group.

[Ctrl E]

Hi Oleg,

Are we close to knowing what computer specs we will need to run SOW? I'm close to building a machine and would like to know.

Many thanks and keep up the great work. it's all very exciting.

[Flying_Nutcase]

Hi Oleg,

Another thing that would be really useful would be Favorites for each list. For example, an object could be marked as a 'favorite' and it would appear above the full list, with other favorites.

Most people use the same objects repeatedly. This would be a real time-saver.


Flying Nutcase

[nearmiss]

The new sort ability is excellent, but we need filters as well.

Filters for Country,squadron ID,etc,

examples:

1. Squadrons should only show for respective country

2. Skins should show only for respective squadron they apply


The better the filters and sorts the more efficient it will be to build missions.

Filters can be applied with third party *.mis text editor like the QMT.
Filtering *.mis files after the misson is built and saved is a workaround for something better done inside the FMB.

[dflion]

Name (8) We arrive at Siverskaya
Short Flying in very bad weather we arrive at our new base at Siverskaya, just as a Soviet bomber attack is in progress\n
Description Date: 31st July 1941\nTime: 0915\nWeather:Rain/Snow\nCloud Height: 1000m\nLocation: Iyhvi-ahtme\n\nWe had quite a tussle last week with some Migs over Narva with two Friedrichs being shot down, luckily both pilots surviving, one with minor injuries.\n\nThis morning Hannes Trautloft announced to the Gruppe that we would be flying to Siverskaya, sixty kilometres south of Leningrad.\nHe had already inspected this airfield and had found nearly all the buildings intact \u2013 the Russians had left in such a hurry!\nTrautloft went on to say that he would make Siverskaya our main base for the attack on Leningrad.\n\nThe weather was very bad with heavy rain showers sweeping in from the Gulf of Finland, several aircraft had already bogged in the large mud pools forming on the airfield.\n\nSelect skin: Bf-109F-2_vomHofe_JG54_Blan.bmp (markings on)\n

Following ‘nearmiss’s’ previous discussion on ‘Mission briefing’s’, I have shown above, one of my mission briefing text’s created in the old FMB.
To save time, I have leant over the years, by ‘cutting and pasting’ a mission briefing from the FMB, you can use it as a template to create a series of new mission briefing’s, outside the FMB using your laptop. This lets you carry out research on your mission’s more easily while watching TV etc. you don’t have to open up the flight sim and type them in.

I always leave the heading’s information, ‘Name’, ‘Short’, ‘Description’ etc. changing these when I have imported the mission text back into the FMB. Writing the mission text is easy, including the ‘\n’ and ‘\n\n’ for new sentences and paragraphs.

You can see from the above, that anything written, or placed into the FMB automatically, creates and corrects in its own language. With the new FMB, this feature will be much more powerful, creating ‘script written’ trigger points most probably using key words.

I will be very interested in seeing how you will set-up your airfield position prior to taxying and take-off and how the AI aircraft will behave around you. I noticed there is a ‘script spawn C’ tick box which hopefully will be linked to your mission briefing text?

DFLion

[Bearcat]

In IL2 FMB, many of the objects were quite difficult to find by simply scrolling through the lists. Particularly the 'object 239 / 240 / 241' list for buildings etc.
Will all objects carry a description and be filtered by drop-down lists?
If so, will the 'Sort by' categories cover all objects in detail such as 'farmhouses' or 'city houses', or would the category be more broad, such as 'houses', or more simply, 'buildings'?



Yes, this has always been an issue I feel. 'Stationary Objects' have names e.g. searchlight, barrage balloon etc. but 'Objects' just have numbers. I'm sure there are hundreds that have never been used because they are so hard to find. Also, it's always been a bit irritating when moving through a list of objects with the scroll arrows, and just when you've found what you are looking for, you move the mouse away from the scroll arrow and the list jumps back to the top. It gets me every time!!


This was one of my issues with the FMB... It would be great if the objects were categorized.. even if it was just like.. building_01-Building_300 or whatever.. but something that would make them easier to find...

This is the problem exactly, you (and Nausicaa) are experienced mission builders and no doubt this update is like early Xmas for you. For those of us who are just getting into mission building or who have only dabbled, the FMB of IL-2 (let alone this new mission builder with all the added functionality) has a very steep learning curve. I look at this update and see the power of this new mission builder as added potential so far on the horizon for me that I doubt I'll ever really get there. We haven't actually seen Battle of Britain yet so I can't comment on what sort of tutorials or documentation will be present but I will say that Seeker is spot on about the quality of the interface and documentation of the current IL-2 mission builder. Quite plainly, it stinks for first-timers.

I haven't seen the rumors about the lack of dynamic campaigns in BoB but the existence of the dynamic campaigns has helped mitigate the FMB learning curve in IL-2 for many of us. The efforts of community members such as yourselves also helps with this. Thanks :). Seeker raises a valid concern about BoB's replayability for mission building newbs, should the rumors prove accurate. Perhaps 1C should hire Lowengrin if there is a problem. If the rumor is true, it could turn off a large and potentially lucrative gamer segment that is needed to generate the revenue for all the expansions you and I wish for in BoB's engine.

It was not negative banter but concerns raised in good faith ( I'd be lying if I said I didn't share them).
Cheers,

Fafnir_6

The complexity of the FMB is also one of it's strong suits.. considering what was available for mission building in 2001 when it was released it is quite powerful.. and since we don't really yet know how all this will be implemented.. why get negative at all about it at all.. It really isnt that hard.. it just seems that way.. Had I continued to make missions using it I am sure that by now I'd be able to whip them up in no time.. as it is though I forgot most of what I knew..LOL.. but thanks to FN it wont be hard.. The last time I used the FMB there was a similar tutorial on a site called Sturmovik Technica..


Here's the thing though, Mate. The guys who will actually put the time into building good solid missions (and more than one or two) will take the time to learn how to use this interface. It really isn't that hard if you take some time to seek out the resources. I'll grant that better tutorial info from 1c would be nice, but the simple fact is that most of the user made content for some time will be from the "old hands" anyway. Just my $.02.

That was always my major issue as to why I didn't use it more.. but it was definitely the kind of tool that if I had applied more time to it I would have gotten better at it.. but even with the limited use got out of it I could see how powerful it was.. I just used Mission Mate (http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&file=details&id=8) for most of the missions I wound up making so it was almost a moot issue for me.. but the FMB is a great tool.. very powerful and I can only imagine it getting better since with the release of upcoming patches for IL2 and the FMB enhancements coming, that the FMB in SOW will be better in every way than the one in IL2..

i'm glad the GUI is the same.
for those who are familiar with the il2 FMB such as myself, it will make the transition very easy, and it seems as though my wish list for the FMB is complete, so i am very happy.
for those who are complaining about the GUI of the il2 FMB, and its difficulties, you obviously haven't bothered to spend more than 10 mins on it and gave up, its very easy to use if you can be bothered to spend a couple of hours learning it, and is far easier than other mission building stuff I've used.
A funkier GUI won't change the fact that you will still have to take some time to learn how to use it....

Exactly.. and that would be the case regardless to how similar or dissimilar from the IL2 one it is.. I think that t is good to keep the continuity in the look of the sim anyway.. The sim itself, the flying etc will speak volumes... but it is good to keep much of the interface either the same or similar to IL2..

Oleg.. will there be a separate QMB or will there just be one MB that is scalable to either setting up quick missions or full scale missions...? Like say by clicking QM it would just eliminate many of the options ion the FMB.. but the interface would be basically the same.. unlike the differences between the FMB & QMB in IL2.

[dflion]

1. Select Campaign folder and create the first mission file.

2. Click-on the ‘Edit’ tab and select ‘Weather Map’ to select weather type. Then select ‘Battle Area’ (to edit objects in the object tick-box listed in 11 Group area) and ‘Armies’ type (Red/English). Select ‘Languages’ (English) and then select ‘Briefings’ to create your first Mission briefing. Finally select ‘Script’ to set specific ‘trigger points’?

3. Click on ‘View’ tab to set-up the display filter. Tick the following: - aircraft, armour, vehicles, train, ship, buildings, static cameras, front markers, show AI actors, show spawn areas, show weather front, show time, show army ‘Red’. Then select Icon size and tick smooth ship path (ships travelling in curves instead of angles?), toggle battle area, show grid, animate camera, fit objects, mission parameters.
Select Landscape options (lighting effect?), Select Mission objects (from list?), ‘Snap’ to look at, Rotate as group, select layers, ‘or’ Undo ‘above’ stack?

4. Click on ‘Object browser’ and view airfield objects list to delete those airfields not in ‘Battle area’? Or enhance airfields in use with new objects.

5. Click on “Object browser’ and view Aircraft to select ‘Aircraft type’.

6. In the ‘Object browser’ select ‘Group properties’ tab to set-up ‘Country’ (United Kingdom), ‘Mission type’ (Fighter), Squadron No., how many Flights in squadron, Formation (type), select squadron ‘Call Sign’, select ‘Weapon set’, slide fuel slider to select fuel %, Check automatically calculated aircraft weight, select ammo belt type, ordinance detonator timing, pilot skill, use slider to create weathering %, select briefing type, tick ‘parachute tick box’, tick ‘scramble’ tick box.

7. In the ‘Object browser’ select the waypoint tab to create mission waypoints, altitude ‘0’, speed ‘0’, action (take-off, etc.etc), type ‘auto’, # passes ‘auto’, (before returning to original track?), radio silence box ticked.

8. Within the waypoint area, go to ‘Inbetweening’. Select waypoints 0-14, select ‘before’ current waypoint and tick ‘interpolate altitude’, ‘interpolate speed’ and ‘carry over type’, tick boxes. Press the ‘Create’ button. I am presuming that these actions will synchronise the waypoint timings of Allied and Axis waypoints to meet at the right time? (Hopefully?)

9. In the ‘Object browser’ select ‘Pilot #1’ tab, tick player tick box, select ‘skill’ (Ace), select skin type, slide ‘weathering %’ slider, select ‘briefing type’, select left noseart, select right noseart, select aircraft tactical number, select aircraft serial number, select band colour, either A,B or C (set colours or custom colours), tick ‘show markings’ box and finally hide 3D view of aircraft.

Looking good, though there is some ‘guess work’ in some areas?

DFLion

[janpitor]

It´s such a shame there will be no Duxford, because that means no Czechoslovak squadrons.
Oleg, will there be an option to pick campaign for squadron that was historically outside of the in-game map?
Or, is there some future plan for map extention to the north?

Thanks

[JAMF]

With there being an army "none" and figuring it would be neutral, would objects in a blue or red army be allowed to be from army "none"?

-Ambulance
-Hospital
-Other objects that should not be attacked
-St. Pauls (or is it another indestructible object?)


Would 'objects' be able to switch to neutral, when they should not be attacked?

-pilots and crew hanging in their parachutes, so they don't become a target for Triple-A or FLAK guns

[Foo'bar]

It´s such a shame there will be no Duxford, because that means no Czechoslovak squadrons.
Oleg, will there be an option to pick campaign for squadron that was historically outside of the in-game map?
Or, is there some future plan for map extention to the north?

Thanks

Somewhen Oleg stated that each 10 kilometres extension to the north would mean about 1 year additional development work.

[Wutz]

I hope the bomber fans get a go at various convoys and ships in the English Channel, as up to now not much has been mentioned about ships, except some nice screen shots I believe of a freighter. As the ship attacks where the kick off for the Battle of Britain.

[ECV56_Guevara]

The similar GUI is great. We will have to discover a new world, knowing the basis. When something new is created, it generates a lot of movement around. FMB tutorials, bombsight tutorials, skins, Campaings, perfomance charts and a long etc...All of that are hours of learning and fun. Wonderfull times are coming.
PD: Oleg: What the feature "battle area" means??
Can we have next week more about fmb and a bombsight view screen?

[Insuber]

Somewhen Oleg stated that each 10 kilometres extension to the north would mean about 1 year additional development work.


8-! ... One year of one person, ore one year of the full team? It's maybe also a function of the allocated resources. I cannot imagine however that you need that much, when all the landscape objects are done. But maybe I'm wrong.

[zodiac]

Somewhen Oleg stated that each 10 kilometres extension to the north would mean about 1 year additional development work.

I understand that it would cost a lot of work if a city like Paris would appear on the map to (only then it would have to expand to the east). That would have been a lot more work for something that has nothing to do with this battle of Britain simulator.
Like I said in my previous post, the thing that surprises me the most is that there are no airfields on this map where the Italians where based. (Can someone confirm this?) Maybe that is the thing that would cost a lot of extra work and research: building all the Italian equipment.

[nearmiss]

janpitor

Maps and map landscape items

It will be possible to add these items later. Oleg, has mentioned there will be ability for users to build maps.

Also, on large maps Oleg will add landscape items over time...or provide a way through FMB for users to add them.

The limitations of size for the original release maps may never have area enlarged, but if you have the ability to add airbases it should be possible to create an airbase on the map. I know such airbases may not be in exact locations, yet distances we fly aren't really handled as real world anyway.

By that I mean... most users 8X to combat areas after takeoffs, return to base is handled similarly after combat. In other words, for the most part users are never inclinded to spend an hour gettting to combat areas or an additional hour getting to home base.

So... where airbases are actually located on maps is not always that important. Naturally, if would be nice if you could name airbases as you will so they would show up on the maps as what you want to represent them to be. In your case "Duxford".

[nearmiss]

I hope the bomber fans get a go at various convoys and ships in the English Channel, as up to now not much has been mentioned about ships, except some nice screen shots I believe of a freighter. As the ship attacks where the kick off for the Battle of Britain.

You need not worry about this, because attacking convoys was a major strategy in the BOB. Be assured this will be very well addressed.

[klem]

It´s such a shame there will be no Duxford, because that means no Czechoslovak squadrons.
Oleg, will there be an option to pick campaign for squadron that was historically outside of the in-game map?
Or, is there some future plan for map extention to the north?

Thanks

I had missed that ! I simply didn't expect it to be missing.

janpitor

Maps and map landscape items...................

for the most part users are never inclinded to spend an hour gettting to combat areas or an additional hour getting to home base.


That depends on whether or not you intend to create realistic scenarios and what is the point in a flagship product like Battle of Britain if you can't? I have flown in scenarios for two hours, never intercepted the enemy, and enjoyed it due to the immersion and the tension. I was even an 11 Group Radar Controller in Aces High over several two hour frames, never "stepped into an aircraft" and enjoyed it more than any other scenario I have ever been in. We aren't all quick-run shoot'em'up players.

OLEG,
12 Group, especially RAF Duxford, was such an important part of the BoB story. The Big Wing theories of Douglas Bader/AVM Trafford Leigh-Mallory were such a controversial issue that we are going to want to try to prove them one way or the other.

I expect you know that 12 Group Squadrons, and the Big Wing, were used by 11 Group to defend their airfields and these are vital to any LW mission designed to destroy those airfields while Group 11 squadrons are out trying to intercept the raids. The delay in forming up and flying from Duxford is a critical timing issue in the Battle. Also, 12 Group's original Big Wing theory, never really put into practice, was to destroy raids en-masse over SE England and it would be interesting to see what effect that, and it's timing issues, may have had on the Battle.

The Map really needs to be extended North as far as Cambridge. I know that is a lot of work but if it would impact release I think a simplified generic Terrain with detail in the Duxford area would be acceptable until a patch could be issued.

I can't stress enough the importance of Duxford in the BoB story.

[nearmiss]

by Klem
We aren't all quick-run shoot'em'up players.


No problem with that. You don't have to click to 8X to enjoy IL2.

I am sure if you poll enough people you can even find some people who enjoy to watch paint dry. LOL

Not ragging on you just thought to add a bit of humor.

I'm OK with...however users want to enjoy the sim.

[Richie]

Somewhen Oleg stated that each 10 kilometres extension to the north would mean about 1 year additional development work.

Oh my gosh! Well that's the great thing about North Africa...no buildings....no trees.

[janpitor]

It is in my concern because I´m from Slovakia and I awaited a long time the possibility to fly some bob Czechoslovak campaign. (maybe to see the known names on rosters and fly missions led by Dougles Bader in an hurricane.) And really if you asked a lot of people to name one important airfield during bob, I believe majority would tell Duxford.
But we will see how these squadrons from north will be implemented from the release.

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

I had missed that ! I simply didn't expect it to be missing.



That depends on whether or not you intend to create realistic scenarios and what is the point in a flagship product like Battle of Britain if you can't? I have flown in scenarios for two hours, never intercepted the enemy, and enjoyed it due to the immersion and the tension. I was even an 11 Group Radar Controller in Aces High over several two hour frames, never "stepped into an aircraft" and enjoyed it more than any other scenario I have ever been in. We aren't all quick-run shoot'em'up players.

OLEG,
12 Group, especially RAF Duxford, was such an important part of the BoB story. The Big Wing theories of Douglas Bader/AVM Trafford Leigh-Mallory were such a controversial issue that we are going to want to try to prove them one way or the other.

I expect you know that 12 Group Squadrons, and the Big Wing, were used by 11 Group to defend their airfields and these are vital to any LW mission designed to destroy those airfields while Group 11 squadrons are out trying to intercept the raids. The delay in forming up and flying from Duxford is a critical timing issue in the Battle. Also, 12 Group's original Big Wing theory, never really put into practice, was to destroy raids en-masse over SE England and it would be interesting to see what effect that, and it's timing issues, may have had on the Battle.

The Map really needs to be extended North as far as Cambridge. I know that is a lot of work but if it would impact release I think a simplified generic Terrain with detail in the Duxford area would be acceptable until a patch could be issued.

I can't stress enough the importance of Duxford in the BoB story.

The Map really needs to be extended North as far as Cambridge. I know that is a lot of work but if it would impact release I think a simplified generic Terrain with detail in the Duxford area would be acceptable until a patch could be issued.

Yeah, but to truly reflect the time both Clydeside (Glasgow) the North East of England (shipbuilding industry bombed from Norway) and the Midlands (Birmingham took a battering, Coventry too) should be in as well. Someone posted a good map showing bomb tonnage (I think) dropped, not sure where to find it though it was interesting.

Its not going to happen and I'm fine with that, the vast majority of the action took place over the South East of course, and that's grand. I'd like nothing better than to help out my "Southern Softie" battle Brethren, we are all in it together and I love em. 'Geet canny', they are. :grin:

There'll always be an England. :grin:

[JG53Frankyboy]

about the FMB:

could there be a groundtarget "win"-objective that count bombs in a given area (like the groundattack circle no in IL2).
As the bombing is odten against cityareas and not point target such a "win condition" would be helpfull in missiondesign - espacially for scripted dogfightservers and COOP online missions.

would make the work easier than hidding trucks in the houses and X% of them have to be destroyed.........................


and please, let moving targets in a "targetcircle:destroy X%" count without putting stationary objects first in the circle. To avoid submerged Submarines (like in IL2) in woods, you know ;)

[KG26_Alpha]

I had missed that ! I simply didn't expect it to be missing.



That depends on whether or not you intend to create realistic scenarios and what is the point in a flagship product like Battle of Britain if you can't? I have flown in scenarios for two hours, never intercepted the enemy, and enjoyed it due to the immersion and the tension. I was even an 11 Group Radar Controller in Aces High over several two hour frames, never "stepped into an aircraft" and enjoyed it more than any other scenario I have ever been in. We aren't all quick-run shoot'em'up players.

OLEG,
12 Group, especially RAF Duxford, was such an important part of the BoB story. The Big Wing theories of Douglas Bader/AVM Trafford Leigh-Mallory were such a controversial issue that we are going to want to try to prove them one way or the other.

I expect you know that 12 Group Squadrons, and the Big Wing, were used by 11 Group to defend their airfields and these are vital to any LW mission designed to destroy those airfields while Group 11 squadrons are out trying to intercept the raids. The delay in forming up and flying from Duxford is a critical timing issue in the Battle. Also, 12 Group's original Big Wing theory, never really put into practice, was to destroy raids en-masse over SE England and it would be interesting to see what effect that, and it's timing issues, may have had on the Battle.

The Map really needs to be extended North as far as Cambridge. I know that is a lot of work but if it would impact release I think a simplified generic Terrain with detail in the Duxford area would be acceptable until a patch could be issued.

I can't stress enough the importance of Duxford in the BoB story.

Simply ridiculous Duxford is missing, also calling Great Western Aerodrome Heathrow seems poor research, maybe Duxford didn't participate to a research request from 1C Team so were cut off :)

If this is the default and only map we have for SoW should it not be a bit more "in depth" of the UK ?


Still lets hope some of the new FMB requests in this thread don't fall on deaf ears.

[Osprey]

.....And really if you asked a lot of people to name one important airfield during bob, I believe majority would tell Duxford.


And I believe the majority would say Biggin Hill.

Duxford would be behind a number of airfields I'm afraid, even if it does host the greatest warbird show in Europe every year.

You don't know if this is the only map, there may well be other maps included and if not I'm pretty sure a map which includes East Anglia and other parts of the UK will follow

[philip.ed]

Guys, when BoB2 came out, it was a really buggy game and for most people unplayable. It has developed into one of the best combat-flight-simulators around, and certainly for the BoB no flight-sim beats it.
I think that we have to appreciate that SoW will not be the perfect box of chocolates like we might expect. There will be chocolates in the box which we don't like, and we might want to replace them with chocolates more to our taste. Of course, SoW will have the time to develop, so we will experience these 'unwanted' chocolates being replaced by ones which we like.
This area of the map may, dissapointingly, not be modelled, but it doesn't mean that it won't be. We have to allow SoW to develop into this perfect sim, and I think this may be hard to appreciate as the word 'perfect' gets thrown around a lot these days.
On release I think we'll be in for a treat, but there will be massive room for expansion towards further perfection. I can't wait to play SoW once it is out, and I can't begin to imagine how awesome it will be 3-10 years down the line. :cool:

[fruitbat]

I'd say Manston, but thats only cause i live 2 miles away, lol.

Hornchurch, Biggin Hill, Tangmere, Debden, theres loads of important airfields, no one was more 'important' or 'famous' really.

[ATAG_Dutch]

I'd say Manston, but thats only cause i live 2 miles away, lol.
Hornchurch, Biggin Hill, Tangmere, Debden, theres loads of important airfields, no one was more 'important' or 'famous' really.

Hawkinge, North Weald......etc, etc.

For our Luftwaffe chums, the map also excludes Coventry................:evil:

But the map as it stands is fine. We can't have everything in the initial release, plus it means there'll be further BoB scenarios to look forward to.

There is also an argument that says Duxford would as much use in the sim as it was IRL.:rolleyes:, but if someone wants to start a thread to discuss...;)

[Splitter]

I'd say Manston, but thats only cause i live 2 miles away, lol.

Hornchurch, Biggin Hill, Tangmere, Debden, theres loads of important airfields, no one was more 'important' or 'famous' really.

From across the pond here, I think it is safe to say that the one that most history buffs here would most easily recognize is Biggin Hill. Until I did some research in the BoB, that was the case for me.

If asked, of course, most Americans would answer that Biggin Hill was where the Hobbits lived.... :).

Guys (and Gals), we are only seeing the first part of the SoW series. We know it will be expanded if it sells well. Have a little patience. If Oleg tried to please everyone with the first installment, the sim would never be finished.

Splitter

[Thunderbolt56]

In all these cases the problem is not in interface, but in understanding of process, sequence and principles.



This says it all. I flew IL2 for about 3 years before I finally decided to learn the FMB. The best way for me was to get on TS with some others already proficient in its use and in about 30-45 minutes had enough understanding and knowledge to create a few missions for our server (greatergreen).

[mazex]

Maybe just a bit. Its a tool, not the game, even it ios integrated in the game. It should looks like a tool really.

I don't care that much about the looks of a tool even though it would be nice with tool ribbons in the upper part that change depending on the object you selected on the map... And good right click context sensitive menus!

I remember my first time in the IL2 FMB - took me 10 minutes to understand how to create an object... Which is 90% of what you do ;)

[kendo65]

Ok guys, now we want the map to be changed AND the fmb.

Anyone got any other 'deal-breakers' that are absolutely going to ruin the game for them :rolleyes:

I'd like to request Oleg to include Norway so that the Luftflotte 5 bomber types don't feel left out.

[kendo65]

Maps and map landscape items

It will be possible to add these items later. Oleg, has mentioned there will be ability for users to build maps.

Also, on large maps Oleg will add landscape items over time...or provide a way through FMB for users to add them.

The limitations of size for the original release maps may never have area enlarged, but if you have the ability to add airbases it should be possible to create an airbase on the map. I know such airbases may not be in exact locations, yet distances we fly aren't really handled as real world anyway.

...


I think Oleg said that the user base would only be able to create small maps and that the developers would reserve the large maps for themselves.

So, there really won't be a later solution to the absence of Duxford as far as I can see - even if someone were to make an 'extension' map to the north, there wouldn't be any way to link it to the main map (?)

The real problem here (with the map and the fmb...and soon no doubt a score of other things too) is that as more detail on the real game comes out, people are going to find those perfect, cosy dreams of perfectibility, that thrived in the absence of any real information, starting to look a bit shaky.

The game is going to involve compromises. Better learn to deal with it.

The inability to fly out of Duxford will, it seems, be one of those compromises. But surely the role of the Duxford squadrons can be adequately represented through use of air-starts and delayed arrival times over the main theatre to the south (as actually happened in reality).

p.s. Duxford wouldn't be the first airfield I would have named - wouldn't even make the top 5. Sorry.

[klem]

Ok guys, now we want the map to be changed AND the fmb.

Anyone got any other 'deal-breakers' that are absolutely going to ruin the game for them :rolleyes:

I'd like to request Oleg to include Norway so that the Luftflotte 5 bomber types don't feel left out.

kendo, my point is that Duxford should never have been a 'deal breaker'.

I don't want to offend Oleg but it is so fundamental to the main defensive Battle, in the South East, that it should be in there. It is not a 'future enhancement' for 'other campaigns', it was an important factor in the Battle and should be in from the start. Not having the one day major NE Coast Luftwaffe raid (2 targets) playable is only a small matter.

I know you're joking about Norway but as an example that was a separate campaign and could come later.

No Duxford in the BoB is like playing cards with all the Jacks removed.

BoB in it's historical sense can't be properly fulfilled or re-enacted/scenario'd without it. OTOH, if people are only interested in big dogfights and shooting down a few bombers over Kent and pretending they are recreating the BoB they won't care, and it won't matter, what fields are or aren't included.

We could of course select a West Country airfield to represent Duxford and have them fly northeast to the edge of the map then turn around and fly south but that's hardly in keeping with Oleg's policy of quality and accuracy.

Please remember that this thread is specifically intended for us to air our views on this week's offering fom Oleg. He's quite capable of answering for himself on such a fundamental point. It's the first time I have seen the map and you can judge from other posts that the Duxford issue is a real concern.

[Freycinet]

Duxford definitely wouldn't in the top 5, that's true. It is also true that 12. group mostly arrived late for the action in the BoB. Still, it would have been nice to have their main stations, but it won't happen so no need to cry over spilt milk. We get so much more!

[klem]

Duxford definitely wouldn't in the top 5, that's true. It is also true that 12. group mostly arrived late for the action in the BoB. Still, it would have been nice to have their main stations, but it won't happen so no need to cry over spilt milk. We get so much more!

I don't think there is a top 5. The Battle ebbed and flowed with first some airfields taking the brunt or plugging the gap and then others. Sometimes all of them. Some of course had higher 'scores' and fame than others. The key sector stations were Hornchurch, Kenley, Biggin Hill, Tangmere, North Weald, Northolt, Debden, Duxford, etc.. PLUS their satellites/subordinates like Manston, West Malling, Hawkinge, West Hampnett. If you say 'Tangmere' you are also saying 'West Hampnett'. I wouldn't be able to split Hornchurch, Kenley, Biggin, Tangmere, Manston, Duxford, Hawkinge and West Malling and I'm not sure about some others but that's 8 anyway that played key roles in the Battle.

[LukeFF]

This observation about the map was made at SimHQ:

I have a bit of a quibble with the inclusion in the SoW map of the Bassin d'Atlantique between Calais and Dunkerque, a feature that was constructed after the war. The whole coastline from Gravelines to Dunkerque was just open beach and dunes in 1940.

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3150692/Re_3_12_2010_SOW_update.html#Post3150692

[kendo65]

Hello Klem - I've taken the liberty of re-ordering elements of your post so that i can address the different issues a little more easily

Please remember that this thread is specifically intended for us to air our views on this week's offering fom Oleg. He's quite capable of answering for himself on such a fundamental point. It's the first time I have seen the map and you can judge from other posts that the Duxford issue is a real concern.

Understood - my reaction may have been a little on the strong side. I wasn't trying to defend Oleg though - the opinions were purely my own


...

No Duxford in the BoB is like playing cards with all the Jacks removed.

BoB in it's historical sense can't be properly fulfilled or re-enacted/scenario'd without it. OTOH, if people are only interested in big dogfights and shooting down a few bombers over Kent and pretending they are recreating the BoB they won't care, and it won't matter, what fields are or aren't included.

I think that our differing opinions about this reflect the debate that has been going on regarding the campaign game: some people want to be able to make strategic-level decisions for the German side - to be able to direct the air campaign with a view to changing the outcome, i.e. a German win. Others think that this is out of place - that the campaign should reflect the perspective of a single pilot (or squadron at most).

I'm probably in the latter camp. Though I wouldn't be averse to a strategic-level sim of the battle - I think that SOW's (and Il2's) emphasis is naturally on the small-scale air combat.

So I don't really think that SOW BOB is going to be able to re-enact the battle on that strategic level where the player can alter the outcome by use of 'Big Wing' tactics, etc. That large-scale recreation of the battle requires a different game I think. The map for that game should include all of Britain and the German bases in France and Norway. The player would also need to be able to choose where to base his squadrons - eg the German commander could withdraw his forces in Norway and use them as reserve for the main attack across the Channel. It really would be a game on a whole different level.

Given that Oleg isn't going that route, what should he attempt to do with the game map given his limited resources?

I think that he has to provide a representative setting - a stage - for the tactical / individual raid-level air combat that the game can recreate well. That really means the map recreates a portion of the south-east of England.

It doesn't preclude the use of 12 Group squadrons in the missions - I think I'm right in saying that although their bases may be off the map, they fought their engagements on it. It means that if the game won't be attempting to refight the battle on the strategic level there is not really a role for the 'what-if' scenarios that some people would like, and there is no need for the 12 Group bases.


I don't want to offend Oleg but it is so fundamental to the main defensive Battle, in the South East, that it should be in there. It is not a 'future enhancement' for 'other campaigns', it was an important factor in the Battle and should be in from the start. Not having the one day major NE Coast Luftwaffe raid (2 targets) playable is only a small matter.

I know you're joking about Norway but as an example that was a separate campaign and could come later.


You are right about the minor nature of the northern raids and about my mention of Norway, but the point is that a line has to be drawn somewhere.

The reasons I've given above explain why I think Oleg has it roughly right.

[1.JaVA_Sjonnie]

Very nice FMB stuff here :grin::grin:

Should I anticipate the next LLTM to feature SoW?;)

[kendo65]

I'm also thinking that triggers / scripting could be used in creative ways to reflect the use of 12 Group squadrons.

Admittedly, that won't give those who want to fly in one of the Duxford squadrons the experience that they want, but it could maybe reflect their role in the battle reasonably well?

[klem]

Hello Klem - I've taken the liberty of re-ordering elements of your post so that i can address the different issues a little more easily
...............

I generally agree with what you say. I'm not talking about change of Strategy. The Axis Strategy for defeating Britain was the destruction of the RAF through the air battle that became known as the BoB, to be followed by the landings in the SE. That would remain the Strategy.

The 12 Group Squadrons/Big Wing question was more a matter of Tactics. Should they have been thrown at the bomber formations wherever they could be found or used for defence of the 11 Group airfields (as they were - well, supposed to have been)? Would the former have resulted in an earlier more decisive victory over the LW and possibly even prevented the Blitz through the destruction of many more enemy a/c even though they had already bombed the airfields or would its non-protection of the airfields have left them devastated and inoperable on a larger scale and earlier than they were, leading to defeat of the RAF? Perhaps it became a moot point as soon as the LW switched to attacking London but if you were Herman Goering and had the benefit of hindsight you'd have kept attacking the airfields and then the case for how to use the Big Wing could have been critical and argued in either direction. At least we have the opportunity to try out both arguments.

So, back On Topic, a Duxford is going to be needed.

[kendo65]

But you're back into 'what if' scenarios again.

That was my main point before (someone else also made the same point talking about the campaign - as an individual pilot or even a squadron commander you have no real influence in those kinds of questions. You just follow the orders handed down from Group or higher level)

When flying a mission in il2 or SOW you will be given a briefing - your instructions - there is no lee-way. You don't get to choose what targets to attack and you don't get to say that your superior's strategy is rubbish.

The jump to allowing the player to decide targetting and strategy is really a jump to a different game (or a different level). It is something that was never in il2 for instance.

It seems that BOB will restrict a player to fulfilling the role of an individual pilot / squadron commander. You will take part in missions and endeavour through use of tactics and skill to succeed. You won't get to decide the strategy, targetting, etc. If you want a realistic campaign that reflects the experience of the real-life pilots then this is accurate.

If we want a sim that allows us to be Keith Park or Leigh Mallory I think we need a different game, or a massively expanded game that would include resource management elements (pilots, aircraft) and require the player to manage locations for squadrons along with targetting and how the squadrons are used.

Personally speaking, I would love to have a game that covered all of those levels. I just realise how big a leap beyond il2 that would be, and I don't think we're going to get it.

this has got off-topic somewhat, but it all comes out of the debate about the map - the type of game we are going to get determines the type of map we need

[dflion]

I'm also thinking that triggers / scripting could be used in creative ways to reflect the use of 12 Group squadrons.

Admittedly, that won't give those who want to fly in one of the Duxford squadrons the experience that they want, but it could maybe reflect their role in the battle reasonably well?

Looking at the full area of the BOB map, I think Oleg was in a real 'quandary' (difficult situation). If you move the map up to include Duxford (see map attached) you cut out the Normandy beachhead. I think the map size probably is limited (due to programming) and Oleg went to the maximum.

Kendo has given us the answer, using 'scripting' we can include 12 Group effectively in the the battle, though they would be in an 'airstart scenerio'.

Looking at the map I have attached, let's hope some 'budding map maker' will include 12 and 13 Group in a new map.

Let us all be thankful for what Oleg and his team have done and move on. I would be grateful for some more feedback on the FMB.

DFLion

[Sutts]

We've got to remember that the FMB is included in the package and with this we can create any type of mission we like. In this way we are acting a bit like a general aren't we?

With regards to Duxford, I'd like to know what happens when we fly off the map? I could be wrong but I seem to remember Oleg saying that the land masses of the entire globe are already in the engine...hence the edge of space views we were treated to once. This could mean that the entire UK is already in there but only populated with textures in the extreme south.

With this in mind it MAY be possible for modders in future to introduce a correctly placed Duxford, perhaps with limited terrain features depending on memory limits etc.

Just a thought.

[klem]

We've got to remember that the FMB is included in the package and with this we can create any type of mission we like. In this way we are acting a bit like a general aren't we?..............

kendo, this is my point. Missions can be created by us in which we can decide strategy, distribution of forces, tactics etc. We aren't a slave to the mission generator. But without the resources (Duxford for example) we can't meet the true extent of even just the defensive aspect of the BoB. We may have to settle for a poor fix, another airfield and routing 'rules' to represent Duxford but it's not very realistic and I'd like to know what Oleg thinks.

If anyone is thinking 'realism fanatic' or 'that's way beyond IL-2', well, that's what I expect from a 21st century simulation that has taken over 6 years to create. A massive amount of work has gone into the FMs, FMB, getting the aircraft, vehicles and the grass looking right etc., but not even having an appropriate map is a bit fundamental.

Picking up on DFLion's thoughts on map size restrictions, what happens when we get to the 8th Air Force bombing campaign stretching from England to Berlin? I don't suppose many people will want to sit in a B17 for 4 hours (a scaled down 8hrs?) but that has been done in other air war games. It's a subject for the future but the map size question is likely to arise again.

[Asheshouse]

The map "edge" has to occur somewhere. I think the limits Oleg has chosen are sufficiently large to allow a lot of flexibility in mission building and will keep the majority happy for some time.

I would be interested in knowing whether the coastlines will continue at low resolution beyond the map edge. As mentioned earlier OM has said that the game engine can model the entire globe. This will give a much better view at high altitude than the existing IL2 effect at the map edge.

It s a shame that important sites like Duxford have been left out but I can understand why. On the southern coast I would have preferred to see the line drawn west of Weymouth (Portland), which was the scene of attacks in the Channel Phase. -- but I guess since we have Southampton and Portsmouth we cant complain.

Not having the correct airfields for the Regia Aeronatica seems like a more important omission since we will have their aircraft. -- but then again we are getting a Gloster Gladiator. They were based in the West Country, well off the map. On balance the more aircraft the better.

[winny]

I just wanted to add some facts to this really.


12 Group
As of 1st August 1940 (and most of July) there was only 1 Spitfire Squadron based at Duxford and they flew out of Fowlmere. There was no fighter sqn scrambling out of Duxford as the sqn would fly to Fowlmere early in the morning and were actually scrambled from there.

At this time Bader was flying out of Cottishall which had 1 Spitfire Sqn and 1 Hurricane Sqn. Digby had the same. Of the 32 times which the 'big wing' tactic was ordered up it resulted in combat 7 times.

303 Sqns first kill was 30th August, 2 months after the start of the BoB.
they were stationed at Northholt.

As of the 1st September there was still only 1 Spitfire Sqn at Duxford, but again they were moved forward in the mornings to Fowlmere.
The only sqn actually scrambling from Duxford was 310 (Czech).

Duxford was not an important base during the BoB.

[kendo65]

kendo, this is my point. Missions can be created by us in which we can decide strategy, distribution of forces, tactics etc. We aren't a slave to the mission generator. But without the resources (Duxford for example) we can't meet the true extent of even just the defensive aspect of the BoB. We may have to settle for a poor fix, another airfield and routing 'rules' to represent Duxford but it's not very realistic and I'd like to know what Oleg thinks.

...



You and Sutts have a fair point there and I actually agree with you. I think a lot of my criticism was about the 'what ifs' and setting strategy aspects that i didn't think was realistically going to be achievable in the campaign - and that the impact of 12 Group in this area could be reflected in other ways.

But, yes, it's a shame we won't be able to script our own missions to simulate being a part of the 'Big Wing' (frustrating experience that I suspect that would be :) ). But some people may also feel it's a shame not to be able to try (at least once) the German raids from Norway, with maybe slightly changed tactics. People have commented on the Italian bases too. I'm not sure if the restricted map size in this instance is mainly down to the limits of current PC specs or about Oleg's resources/time limits in creating it.

Winny raises some interesting points too.

Good point about future 8th AF situations. I guess that a way will have to be found eventually and I'm sure we'll see things progress and the issues will be solved.

Unfortunately, for now though, no Duxford.

[Conte Zero]

In for a second just to say that, as a complete editor freak (in any game, expecially IL2) I greatly appreciated the last screenshots showing the FMB

Thanks to Oleg and his whole great team.

Cz

[klem]

I just wanted to add some facts to this really............

I completely agree although those airfields are north of the current extent of the Map.

I would be happy to see Duxford representing all of those.

Anyway, enough said unless we can hear from Oleg.

[winny]

I completely agree although those airfields are north of the current extent of the Map.

I would be happy to see Duxford representing all of those.


I don't think any 12 Group stations are on the map and I'm not arguing against that it would be nice to have Duxford on the map.
SoW is obviously a Simulation based on 11 Group.

It would be nice if you were able to allow the player to call in sqn's from 12 Group to 11 Group airfields whilst in a mission, and accuratley represent the time delays involved.

Personally, I think it is more important to represent the Squadrons accuratley and be able to use them, than have Duxford.

There's a fine line between 'What it was like' and 'How it was'
If any game was exactly 'How it was' it wouldn't be a game any more, it'd be the longest documentary ever.

If you want to know what it was like to be an 11 Group Fighter Pilot in 1940 then SoW will show you 'what it was like'. If you want to be a 12 group pilot then you should probably give it a miss...

[speculum jockey]

If you want to know what it was like to be an 11 Group Fighter Pilot in 1940 then SoW will show you 'what it was like'. If you want to be a 12 group pilot then you should probably give it a miss...

Or they could just take off from one of the 11th group airstrips, circle for 15-20 minutes to burn off some fuel and waste some time and voila! You just simulated a flight from an airstrip further away! Don't forget to circle the airstrip for another 10-15 minutes when landing.

[Osprey]

I don't want to offend Oleg but it is so fundamental to the main defensive Battle, in the South East, that it should be in there. It is not a 'future enhancement' for 'other campaigns', it was an important factor in the Battle and should be in from the start. Not having the one day major NE Coast Luftwaffe raid (2 targets) playable is only a small matter.

No Duxford in the BoB is like playing cards with all the Jacks removed.

BoB in it's historical sense can't be properly fulfilled or re-enacted/scenario'd without it. OTOH, if people are only interested in big dogfights and shooting down a few bombers over Kent and pretending they are recreating the BoB they won't care, and it won't matter, what fields are or aren't included.

We could of course select a West Country airfield to represent Duxford and have them fly northeast to the edge of the map then turn around and fly south but that's hardly in keeping with Oleg's policy of quality and accuracy.

Please remember that this thread is specifically intended for us to air our views on this week's offering fom Oleg. He's quite capable of answering for himself on such a fundamental point. It's the first time I have seen the map and you can judge from other posts that the Duxford issue is a real concern.

Klem, I am assuming that you aren't an englishman because your geography is all over the shop.

1. Duxford is in the East, not the South-East You may consider it the South East but people in England consider it Eastern, especially those who proudly live there. To put things into perspective it is as far north as Coventry and they speak funny up there ;)
2. The South West is not on this map. The South West (where I live) extends to Wiltshire and that's it. Everything else to the East is considered Southern and South Eastern.
3. Historically 12 Group squadrons didn't get all that involved in the fighting over the South Downs. Winny covered this point very well.

In order to include Duxford the map would have to extend another 50 miles northward. To put things into perspective RAF Croydon is 50 miles from the South Coast at Brighton.

[Abbeville-Boy]

there has to be a line not crossed to get this thing done ASAP :-P

[Ploughman]

I was looking forward to bombing Weymouth, but Southampton'll do nicely. And Sidcup of course, coming to get you Sidcup.

Thanks for the update, looks like more lost weeks in the mission builder ahead.

[klem]

Klem, I am assuming that you aren't an englishman because your geography is all over the shop.

1. Duxford is in the East, not the South-East You may consider it the South East but people in England consider it Eastern, especially those who proudly live there. To put things into perspective it is as far north as Coventry and they speak funny up there ;)
2. The South West is not on this map. The South West (where I live) extends to Wiltshire and that's it. Everything else to the East is considered Southern and South Eastern.
3. Historically 12 Group squadrons didn't get all that involved in the fighting over the South Downs. Winny covered this point very well.

In order to include Duxford the map would have to extend another 50 miles northward. To put things into perspective RAF Croydon is 50 miles from the South Coast at Brighton.

Oh gawd I promised myself I wouldn't say any more on this but your points are a bit different.

I am English, I now live on the South Coast near to Brighton. I was born in SE London under what had been the V1/V2 alley and 300 yds from a major triple railway junction that got plastered several times. I played on bombsites and have got p*ssed in Croydon. I work as a volunteer at an aviation museum that was an 11 Group Sector Station and has a hall dedicated to the BoB. I know exactly where Duxford is, I have visited it several times and my daughter went to Uni at nearby Cambridge. I drove past Duxford many times.

My english said 'the main defensive Battle, in the South East,' meaning I accept that we don't have the North Eastern LF5 raids or the offensive bombing raids into Germany (don't ever suggest to Bomber Crew of the time that Bombing played no part in the Battle, I have met a couple and they don't like it).

I know the South West is not on the Map and I haven't worried about 10 Group although the map touches on that.

The 12 Group squadrons did not, indeed, get much involved over the South Downs, their task was to defend the 11 Group Airfields, particularly those to the South of London down to Surrey and mid Kent.

Look guys, we can kick this football around for another week. We all have our opinions about whether 12 Group was important or not. Some of your your views are interesting and to me somewhat surprising at how little importance you attach to 12 Group's involvement in the Battle, as it was fought, or to how it might otherwise have been fought.

However, mine was a simple question to Oleg. The only thing I am really interested in now, expecting that we won't get an important part of 12 Group, is how Oleg, knowing the Battle, intended us to represent Squadrons outside 11 Group that took part, e.g. how did he envisage us representing the Duxford Wing.

That's it, I'm done.

[nearmiss]

Klem

You have made some very good points.

Oleg may be able to address your concerns. Possibly a while after the initial release with an enlarged map, which could release as a patch.

Then again, for security reasons the actual map for BOB SOW may not be what we are seeing in the screenshots. Afterall, the SOW is about the Battle of Britain. It just doesn't make sense for a BOB to not have all the groups covered.

Afterall, many users already have large amounts of ram, high performance video cards, and multi-processors. It has been my understanding the map sizes have been restricted principally to allow persons with lower spec systems to use the sim.

[Bearcat]

If this sim is like IL2 was I will not be surprised it it will run fine off a dual core something or other with DDR 400 RAM and -4 generation video card.. at toned down settings of course..